Guide To The Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge v2.9

Released 20 November 2023
G u i d e to t h e S y s t e m s
Engineering Body of
Kn o w l e d g e ( S E B o K )
Version 2.9
Guide to the
Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge
(SEBoK), version 2.9
Released 20 November 2023
Please note that this is a PDF extraction of the content from www.sebokwiki.org
Contents
Articles
Front Matter 1
Editor's Corner 1
Governance and Editorial Boards 2
Acknowledgements and Release History 7
SEBoK Sponsors 10
Bkcase Wiki:Copyright 11
Table of Contents 13
SEBoK Table of Contents 13
Part 1: SEBoK Introduction 20

SEBoK Introduction 20
Introduction to the SEBoK 22

Introduction to the SEBoK 22
Scope of the SEBoK 23
Structure of the SEBoK 25
Introduction to Systems Engineering 30

Systems Engineering Overview 32
Fundamentals for Digital Engineering 36
Economic Value of Systems Engineering 42
A Brief History of Systems Engineering 45
Systems Engineering: Historic and Future Challenges 50
Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines 54
Fundamentals for Future Systems Engineering 57
SEBoK Users and Uses 60

Guidance for Systems Engineering Novices 63
Guidance for Systems Engineers 67
Guidance for Engineers 70
Guidance for Systems Engineering Customers 74
Guidance for Educators and Researchers 78
Guidance for General Managers 81
Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering 85

Foundations of Systems Engineering 85
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering Fundamentals 92

Systems Engineering Fundamentals 92
Introduction to Systems Engineering Fundamentals 95
Systems Engineering Core Concepts 103
Systems Engineering Principles 107
Systems Engineering Heuristics 113
Knowledge Area: The Nature of Systems 118

The Nature of Systems 118
Types of Systems 122
Cycles and the Cyclic Nature of Systems 129
Knowledge Area: Systems Science 134

Systems Science 134
History of Systems Science 135
Systems Approaches 142
Complexity 147
Emergence 153
Knowledge Area: Systems Thinking 158

Systems Thinking 158
What is Systems Thinking? 161
Concepts of Systems Thinking 165
Principles of Systems Thinking 170
Patterns of Systems Thinking 176
Knowledge Area: Representing Systems with Models 185

Representing Systems with Models 185
What is a Model? 187
Why Model? 192
Types of Models 195
System Modeling Concepts 200
Integrating Supporting Aspects into System Models 203
Modeling Standards 210
Knowledge Area: Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems 214

Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems 214
Overview of the Systems Approach 216
Engineered System Context 223
Identifying and Understanding Problems and Opportunities 227
Synthesizing Possible Solutions 232
Analysis and Selection between Alternative Solutions 237
Implementing and Proving a Solution 240
Deploying, Using, and Sustaining Systems to Solve Problems 242
Applying the Systems Approach 245
Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management 255

Systems Engineering and Management 255
Systems Engineering STEM Overview 262
Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) 272
Knowledge Area: Systems Lifecycle Approaches 279

Systems Lifecycle Approaches 279
Generic Life Cycle Model 281
Applying Life Cycle Processes 284
Life Cycle Processes and Enterprise Need 291
Knowledge Area: System Lifecycle Models 295

System Lifecycle Models 295
System Lifecycle Process Drivers and Choices 300
System Lifecycle Process Models: Vee 305
System Lifecycle Process Models: Incremental 317
System Life Cycle Process Models: Agile Systems Engineering 336
Process Integration 344
Lean Engineering 355
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering Management 358

Systems Engineering Management 358
Technical Planning 360
Assessment and Control 365
Decision Management 370
Risk Management 383
Configuration Management 392
Information Management 398
Quality Management 404
Measurement 410
Knowledge Area: Business and Mission Analysis 419

Business and Mission Analysis 419
Business or Mission Analysis 422
Stakeholder Needs Definition 429
Stakeholder Requirements Definition 436
Knowledge Area: System Architecture Definition 446

Logical Architecture 446
Physical Architecture 455
Detailed Design Definition 463
System Analysis 468
System Realization 475
System Implementation 480
System Integration 485
System Verification 495
System Transition 503
System Validation 507
System Operation 518
System Maintenance 521
Logistics 524
Knowledge Area: Service Life Management 531

Service Life Management 531
Service Life Extension 536
Capability Updates, Upgrades, and Modernization 542
System Disposal and Retirement 550
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering Standards 556

Systems Engineering Standards 556
Relevant Standards 557
Alignment and Comparison of Systems Engineering Standards 562
Application of Systems Engineering Standards 568
Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering 572

Applications of Systems Engineering 572
Knowledge Area: Product Systems Engineering 575

Product Systems Engineering 575
Product Systems Engineering Background 584
Product as a System Fundamentals 592
Business Activities Related to Product Systems Engineering 600
Product Systems Engineering Key Aspects 605
Product Systems Engineering Special Activities 616
Knowledge Area: Service Systems Engineering 624

Service Systems Engineering 624
Service Systems Background 629
Fundamentals of Services 635
Properties of Services 642
Scope of Service Systems Engineering 646
Value of Service Systems Engineering 651
Service Systems Engineering Stages 657
Knowledge Area: Enterprise Systems Engineering 664

Enterprise Systems Engineering 664
Enterprise Systems Engineering Background 671
The Enterprise as a System 680
Related Business Activities 688
Enterprise Systems Engineering Key Concepts 696
Enterprise Systems Engineering Process Activities 702
Enterprise Capability Management 711
Knowledge Area: Systems of Systems (SoS) 717

Systems of Systems (SoS) 717
Architecting Approaches for Systems of Systems 724
Socio-Technical Features of Systems of Systems 730
Capability Engineering 734
Mission Engineering 736
Knowledge Area: Healthcare Systems Engineering 739

Healthcare Systems Engineering 739
Overview of the Healthcare Sector 746
Systems Engineering in Healthcare Delivery 750
Systems Biology 755
Lean in Healthcare 759
Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering 765

Enabling Systems Engineering 765
Knowledge Area: Enabling Businesses and Enterprises 768

Enabling Businesses and Enterprises 768
Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy 770
Determining Needed Systems Engineering Capabilities in Businesses and Enterprises 779
Organizing Business and Enterprises to Perform Systems Engineering 787
Assessing Systems Engineering Performance of Business and Enterprises 794
Developing Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises 801
Culture 808
Knowledge Area: Enabling Teams 815

Enabling Teams 815
Team Capability 817
Team Dynamics 825
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion 828
Technical Leadership in Systems Engineering 834
Knowledge Area: Enabling Individuals 848

Enabling Individuals 848
Roles and Competencies 850
Assessing Individuals 860
Developing Individuals 864
Ethical Behavior 870
Part 6: Related Disciplines 874

Related Disciplines 874
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Environmental Engineering 877

Systems Engineering and Environmental Engineering 877
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic

Engineering 883
Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering 883
Overview of Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering 884
Relationship between Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering 888
Further Insights into Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering 893
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering 903

Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering 903
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Project Management 911

Systems Engineering and Project Management 911
The Nature of Project Management 912
An Overview of the PMBOK® Guide 915
Relationships between Systems Engineering and Project Management 917
The Influence of Project Structure and Governance on Systems Engineering and Project
Management Relationships 920
Procurement and Acquisition 925
Portfolio Management 931
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Software Engineering 936

Systems Engineering and Software Engineering 936
Software Engineering in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle 938
The Nature of Software 943
An Overview of the SWEBOK Guide 945
Key Points a Systems Engineer Needs to Know about Software Engineering 950
Software Engineering Features - Models, Methods, Tools, Standards, and Metrics 956
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Mechanical Engineering 960

Systems Engineering and Mechanical Engineering 960
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Enterprise IT 965

Systems Engineering and Enterprise IT 965
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes 978

Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes 978
A Framework for Viewing Quality Attributes from the Lens of Loss 981
Human Systems Integration 987
Manufacturability and Producibility 994
System Adaptability 995
System Affordability 1004
System Hardware Assurance 1007
System Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability 1013
System Resilience 1028
System Resistance to Electromagnetic Interference 1041
System Safety 1047
System Security 1050
Part 7: SE Implementation Examples 1059

Systems Engineering Implementation Examples 1059
Matrix of Implementation Examples 1062
Implementation Examples 1065
Defense System Examples 1068

Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems 1068
Virginia Class Submarine 1076
Information System Examples 1079

Complex Adaptive Taxi Service Scheduler 1079
Successful Business Transformation within a Russian Information Technology Company 1085
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Virtual Case File System 1092
Management System Examples 1096

Project Management for a Complex Adaptive Operating System 1096
Medical System Examples 1101

Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump 1101
Medical Radiation 1106
Design for Maintainability 1109
Space System Examples 1112

Global Positioning System 1112
Global Positioning System II 1116
Russian Space Agency Project Management Systems 1123
How Lack of Information Sharing Jeopardized the NASA/ESA Cassini/Huygens Mission to
Saturn 1128
Hubble Space Telescope 1133
Applying a Model-Based Approach to Support Requirements Analysis on the Thirty-Meter
Telescope 1136
Miniature Seeker Technology Integration Spacecraft 1144
Apollo 1 Disaster 1146
Transportation System Examples 1151

Denver Airport Baggage Handling System 1151
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advanced Automation System (AAS) 1153
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Next Generation Air Transportation System 1155
Reverse Engineering a UAV Prototype using Agile Practices 1160
UK West Coast Route Modernisation Project 1163
Standard Korean Light Transit System 1165
Utilities Examples 1169

Northwest Hydro System 1169
Singapore Water Management 1174
Part 8: Emerging Knowledge 1177

Emerging Knowledge 1177
Emerging Topics 1180

Introduction to SE Transformation 1182
Socio-technical Systems 1184
Artificial Intelligence 1187
Verification and Validation of Systems in Which AI is a Key Element 1193
Transitioning Systems Engineering to a Model-based Discipline 1202
Model-Based Systems Engineering Adoption Trends 2009-2018 1205
Digital Engineering 1213
Set-Based Design 1215
System of Systems and Complexity 1220
Emerging Research 1225

References
Article Sources and Contributors 1228
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 1235
1
Front Matter
Editor's Corner
The Editor’s Corner provides perspective from the Editor in Chief
on critical topics for systems engineering, either through their own
words or by inviting a guest writer.
20 November 2023
The formal discipline of systems engineering emerged in the first
half of the 20th century. Over the last 80+ years, it has evolved
from first principles to a process-focused field that generally
operates in the defense and aerospace domains to a
transdisciplinary one focusing on the integration and interaction
between technology and people across a variety of domains. In its
Vision 2035, the International Council on Systems Engineering
(INCOSE), states that “the practice of systems engineering will
further evolve to support the demands of ever-increasing system
complexity and enterprise competitiveness. By 2035, systems
engineering will leverage the digital transformation in its tools and
methods and will be largely model-based using integrated
descriptive and analytical digital representations of the systems.
Systems design, analysis, and simulation models, immersive technologies, and an analytic framework will enable
broad trade-space exploration, rapid design evolution, and provide a shared understanding of the system throughout
its life cycle.”
The Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) [1] led the initial creation of the Guide to the Systems
Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK, pronounced “see-bach”). In 2009, the SERC began the three-year process
of developing the SEBoK with a team of over 70 authors from around the world. Version 1.0 was published in 2012
and inpast 11 years the SEBoK has evolved in many ways: new topics, the inclusion of videos, a major
rearrangement of the discussion, and perhaps most importantly, the addition of an area dedicated to the emerging
topics of systems engineering.
Over the years, the SEBoK has been led by several Editors in Chief:
• Art Pyster and Dave Olwell led the development of SEBoK through version 1.0, including the decision to
implement the SEBoK as a wiki.
• Rick Adcock, appointed the first Editor in Chief after the transition of SEBoK from a research task to a
community-led effort, helped identify new members of the editorial board and oversaw the addition of the first
domain-focused knowledge area, Healthcare Systems Engineering.
• Rob Cloutier added the first new part to the SEBoK since its initial release: Emerging Knowledge, which captures
topics that are critical for systems engineers but for which the knowledge is not yet settled (e.g. artificial
intelligence applications to systems engineering). Rob also fostered the addition of multi-media to the SEBoK and
created and built upon articles about the discipline, including A Brief History of Systems Engineering.
I am honored to have been asked to be the newest Editor in Chief of the SEBoK. And like every Editor in Chief
before me, I am extremely lucky to work with a group of editors and authors from around the world that have
Editor's Corner 2
consistently supported the SEBoK. These people are critical representatives of the global systems engineering
community, and the SEBoK would not be possible without their tireless efforts.
Looking forward as the discipline of systems engineering evolves, the SEBoK will need to evolve with it. At my first
INCOSE International Symposium in 2008, I heard about something called "model-based systems engineering". The
last 5 years have seen a tremendous push toward "digital engineering". Both of these are currently reflected in the
SEBoK, but we need to do more. Digital transformation is a critical topic for systems engineers and will continue to
be for at least the next decade. But the true end state is not that we as a discipline create new pockets of practice but
that instead we move as a community toward a data- and model-enabled way of working. My sincere hope is that in
2033, we will talk not about MBSE or DE but about systems engineering with models and data a standard part of
practice. To that end, I'm pleased to share that we have assembled a team whose mission is to integrate the
discussion of using models and data throughout the SEBoK and that Rob Cloutier has agreed to spearhead this effort.
Finally, I encourage anyone with an interest to reach out to the SEBoK team sebok@incose.net [2]. We welcome
your feedback and insights and look forward to partnering with you as we move toward the SEBoK of the future.
Sincerely,
References
[1] http:/ / www. sercuarc. org
[2] mailto:sebok@incose. net
Governance and Editorial Boards

BKCASE Governing Board
The three SEBoK steward organizations – the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Systems Council (IEEE-SYSC), and Stevens Institute of Technology –
provide the primary funding and resources needed to sustain and evolve the SEBoK and make it available as a free
and open resource to all. The stewards appoint the BKCASE Governing Board to be their primary agents to oversee
and guide the SEBoK. The stewards appoint the SEBoK Editor in Chief to manage the SEBoK and oversee the
Editorial Board.
The BKCASE Governing Board includes:
• Representing the The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
• Art Pyster (Governing Board Chair), Emma Sparks
• Representing the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC)
• Thomas McDermott, Cihan Dagli
• Representing the IEEE Systems Council (IEEE-SYSC)
• Stephanie White, Bob Rassa
Past governors include Andy Chen, Richard Fairley, Kevin Forsberg, Paul Frenz, Richard Hilliard, John Keppler,
Bill Miller, David Newbern, Ken Nidiffer, Dave Olwell, Massood Towhidnejad, Jon Wade, David Walden, and
Courtney Wright. The governors would especially like to acknowledge Andy Chen and Rich Hilliard, IEEE
Computer Society, who were instrumental in helping the governors to work within the IEEE CS structure and who
supported the SEBoK transition to the IEEE Systems Council.
Editorial Board
The SEBoK Editorial Board is chaired by the Editor in Chief, who provides the strategic vision for the SEBoK. The
EIC is supported by a group of Editors, each of whom are responsible for a specific aspect of the SEBoK. The EIC
and Editorial Board are supported by the Managing Editor, who handles all day-to-day operations. The EIC,
Managing Editor, and Editorial Board are supported by a Student Editor, Eleni Canez, whose hard work and
dedication are greatly appreciated.
SEBoK Editor in Chief
Nicole Hutchison
Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC)
[1] [2]
nicole.hutchison@stevens.edu or emtnicole@gmail.com
Responsible for the appointment of SEBoK Editors and for the strategic direction and overall
quality and coherence of the SEBoK.
SEBoK Managing Editor
Chris Hoffman
INCOSE, Cummins Inc.
[3]
christopher.hoffman@incose.net
Responsible for the the day-to-day operations of the SEBoK and supports the Editor in Chief.
You can reach out to both the Editor in Chief and the Managing Editor by emailing |sebok@incose.net [2].
Each Editor has their area(s) of responsibility, or shared responsibility, highlighted in the table below.
SEBoK Part 1: SEBoK Introduction
Lead Editor: Nicole Hutchison

[1]
emtnicole@gmail.com
SEBoK Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering
Lead Editor: Gary Smith (UK)

Airbus and International Society for the System Sciences
[4]
grs0036@gmail.com
Responsible for the System Science Foundations of System Engineering.
Assistant Editor: Dov Dori Assistant Editor: Duane Hybertson

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA) and Technion Israel MITRE (USA)
Institute of Technology (Israel) [6]
dhyberts@mitre.org
[5]
dori@mit.edu Jointly responsible for the Systems Fundamentals, Systems Science and
Responsible for the Representing Systems with Models knowledge Systems Thinking knowledge areas.
area
Assistant Editor: Peter Tuddenham Assistant Editor: Cihan Dagli

College of Exploration (USA) Missouri University of Science & Technology (USA)
[7] [8]
Peter@coexploration.net dagli@mst.edu
Responsible for the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems
knowledge areas.
SEBoK Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management
Lead Editor: Jeffrey Carter

JTC Consulting
[9]
jtcarter.57@outlook.com
Model-based system design techniques with the Systems Modeling Language [SysML®] for product development, integration, and verification
Assistant Editor: Phyllis Marbach Assistant Editor: Caitlyn Singam University of Maryland, College Park
[11]
INCOSE LA [USA] csingam@terpmail.umd.edu
[10]
prmarbach@gmail.com
SEBoK Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering
Lead Editor: Tom McDermott

[12]
tmcdermo@stevens.edu
Assistant Editor: Javier Calvo-Amodio Assistant Editor: Judith Dahmann

Oregon State University MITRE Corporation (USA)
[13] [14]
Javier.Calvo@oregonstate.edu jdahmann@mitre.org
Jointly responsible for Product Systems Engineering and Systems of Systems (SoS) knowledge areas.
Assistant Editor: Michael Henshaw

Loughborough University (UK)
[15]
M.J.d.Henshaw@lboro.ac.uk
Jointly responsible for Product Systems Engineering and Systems of Systems (SoS) knowledge areas
SEBoK Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering
Lead Editor: Bernardo Delicado

INCOSE/Indra Sistemas
[Mailto:bernardo.delicado@incose.net bernardo.delicado@incose.net]
Assistant Editor: Emma Sparks Assistant Editor: Rick Hefner

Cranfield University California Institute of Technology
Jointly responsible for the Enabling Individuals and Enabling Teams knowledge areas. Rick.Hefner@ngc.com [16]
SEBoK Part 6: Related Disciplines
Lead Editor: Art Pyster

George Mason University (USA)
[17]
apyster@gmu.edu
SEBoK Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples
Lead Editor: Clif Baldwin

FAA Technical Center
[18]
cliftonbaldwin@gmail.com
SEBoK Part 8: Emerging Knowledge
Lead Editor: Daniel DeLaurentis

Purdue University
[19]
ddelaure@purdue.edu
Assistant Editor: Ha Phuong Le

Purdue University
[20]
haple104@gmail.com
SEBoK Cross-Cutting: Digital Engineering
Lead Editor: Robert J. Cloutier

University of South Alabama
[21]
rcloutier@southalabama.edu
SEBoK Cross-Cutting: Standards
Lead Editor: Garry Roedler

Retired Senior Fellow at Lockheed Martin
[22]
gjrjar@gmail.com
Student Editor
SEBoK Student Editor
Eleni Canez
University of Arizona
[23]
elcanez@arizona.edu
Eleni Canez, an undergraduate student at University of Arizona, is currently supporting the SEBoK
Managing Editor and Editor in Chief. We are deeply appreciative of the work Eleni has done and look
forward to continuing to work with her.
Interested in Editing?
The Editor in Chief is looking for additional editors to support the evolution of the SEBoK. Editors are responsible
for maintaining and updating one to two knowledge areas, including recruiting and working with authors, ensuring
the incorporation of community feedback, and maintaining the quality of SEBoK content. We are specifically
interested in support for the following knowledge areas:
• Enabling Businesses and Enterprises
• Procurement and Acquisition
• Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes
• Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and Digital Engineering
If you are interested in being considered for participation on the Editorial Board, please contact the SEBoK Staff
directly at sebok@incose.net [2].
SEBoK v. 2.9, released 20 November 2023
References
[1] mailto:nicole. hutchison@stevens. edu
[2] mailto:emtnicole@gmail. com
[3] mailto:christopher. hoffman@incose. net
[4] mailto:grs0036@gmail. com
[5] mailto:dori@mit. edu
[6] mailto:dhyberts@mitre. org
[7] mailto:Peter@coexploration. net
[8] mailto:dagli@mst. edu
[9] mailto:jtcarter. 57@outlook. com
[10] mailto:prmarbach@gmail. com
[11] mailto:csingam@terpmail. umd. edu
[12] mailto:tmcdermo@stevens. edu
[13] mailto:Javier. Calvo@oregonstate. edu
[14] mailto:jdahmann@mitre. org
[15] mailto:M. J. d. Henshaw@lboro. ac. uk
[16] mailto:Rick. Hefner@ngc. com
[17] mailto:apyster@gmu. edu
[18] mailto:cliftonbaldwin@gmail. com
[19] mailto:ddelaure@purdue. edu
[20] mailto:haple104@gmail. com
[21] mailto:rcloutier@southalabama. edu

[22] mailto:gjrjar@gmail. com
[23] mailto:elcanez@arizona. edu
Acknowledgements and Release History

This article describes the contributors to the current version of the SEBoK. For information on contributors to past
versions of the SEBoK, please follow the links under "SEBoK Release History" below.
The BKCASE Project began in the fall of 2009. Its aim was to add to the professional practice of systems
engineering by creating two closely related products:
• Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK)
• Graduate Reference Curriculum for Systems Engineering (GRCSE)
BKCASE History, Motivation, and Value

The Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) is a living authoritative guide that discusses
knowledge relevant to Systems Engineering. It defines how that knowledge should be structured to facilitate
understanding, and what reference sources are the most important to the discipline. The curriculum guidance in the
Graduate Reference Curriculum for Systems Engineering (GRCSE) (Pyster and Olwell et al. 2015) makes
reference to sections of the SEBoK to define its core knowledge; it also suggests broader program outcomes and
objectives which reflect aspects of the professional practice of systems engineering as discussed across the SEBoK.
Between 2009 and 2012, BKCASE was led by Stevens Institute of Technology and the Naval Postgraduate School in
coordination with several professional societies and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), which
provided generous funding. More than 75 authors and many other reviewers and supporters from dozens of
companies, universities, and professional societies across 10 countries contributed many thousands of hours writing
the SEBoK articles; their organizations provided significant other contributions in-kind.
The SEBoK came into being through recognition that the systems engineering discipline could benefit greatly by
having a living authoritative guide closely related to those groups developing guidance on advancing the practice,
education, research, work force development, professional certification, standards, etc.
At the beginning of 2013, BKCASE transitioned to a new governance model with shared stewardship between the
Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) [1], the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) [1],
and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Society (IEEE-CS) [2]. This governance structure
was formalized in a memorandum of understanding between the three stewards that was finalized in spring of 2013
and subsequently updated. In January 2020, the IEEE Systems Council [3] replaced the IEEE-CS in representing
IEEE as a steward. The stewards have reconfirmed their commitment to making the SEBoK available at no cost to
all users, a key principle of BKCASE.
As of May 2022, SEBoK articles have had over 6M pageviews from more than 2M unique visitors. We hope the
SEBoK will regularly be used by thousands of systems engineers and others around the world as they undertake
technical activities such as eliciting requirements, creating systems architectures, or analyzing system test results;
and professional development activities such as developing career paths for systems engineers, and deciding new
curricula for systems engineering university programs.
Governance
The SEBoK is shaped by the SEBoK Editorial Board and is overseen by the BKCASE Governing Board. A complete
list of members for each of these bodies can be found on the BKCASE Governance and Editorial Board page.
Content and Feature Updates for version 2.9

This version was released on 20 November 2023. This release included:
• Governance and Editorial Boards changes including a new Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor
• A new article on Reverse Engineering a UAV Prototype using Agile Practices
• A new article on System Security that replaces the one found in SEBoK 2.8
• A new article on the An Overview of the SWEBOK Guide that replaces the one found in SEBoK 2.8
• An updated article on Loss Driven Systems Engineering, A Framework for Viewing Quality Attributes from the
Lens of Loss
• An updated article on System Resilience
• A transition from the use cases originally published in SEBoK v. 1.0 to more persona-driven guidance for
different types of users
• Minor updates to articles throughout the SEBoK
SEBoK Release History

There have been 21 releases of the SEBoK to date.
Main Releases
• Version 2.9 - current version.
• Version 2.8 - this release included new articles on systems engineering and enterprise IT, and system adaptability;
minor updates to several articles throughout the wiki; imrpovements to the wiki infrastructure; and Rob Cloutier's
final edition of the SEBoK as Editor-in-Chief.
• Version 2.7 - this release included new articles on loss-driven systems engineering and the history of systems
engineering; updates to the article on systems and industrial engineering; and minor updates to improve resources
and align with evolving practices throughout part 3, including in the articles around systems engineering
standards and to the articles in Part 5, particularly the addition of new resources. There were also some
improvements in the SEBoK wiki infrastructure.
• Version 2.6 - this update included substantial evolution of Parts 2 and 3, the foundations of systems engineering
and systems engineering approaches, methods, processes, and tools. The version also included more information
on Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and Digital Engineering, refinement of systems science
foundations of systems engineering, and a new article on agile approaches. In Part 6 there were many new articles
and updates to existing articles on the relationships between systems engineering and other disciplines.
• Version 2.5 - This version included an update of the main page; creation of the Editor's Corner; new sponsors and
sponsorship packages; new navigation in the left-hand menu; small edits to address the comments received from
the community. This release also updated to the latest version of MediaWiki, tightened up the IT infrastructure,
and made some adjustments to improve performance.
• Version 2.4 - This was a minor release, including reorganizations of Part 6 and 8 to handle new knowledge areas
and topics. In addition, several new articles were added, including, Systems Engineering Heuristics, Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion, Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering Knowledge Area, System
Hardware Assurance, Socio-technical Systems, Verification and Validation of Systems in Which AI is a Key
Element, and an introductory article on Artificial Intelligence. The content on Systems of Systems (SoS) was also
updated.
• Version 2.3 - This was a minor release, including two new articles: Cycles and the Cyclic Nature of Systems and
Portfolio Management. A number of additional minor edits, including a new overview graphic for the SEBoK,
cleanup of existing pages, software updates, etc. were incorporated.
• Version 2.2 - This was a significant release, including the first new Part to be added since v. 1.0 - Emerging
Knowledge - which is a place to highlight new topics in systems engineering that are important but may not yet
have a large body of literature. Recent dissertations around emerging topics are also included. A new case study
on Apollo 1 was added to Part 7, which has also been reorganized around topics. Additional minor updates have
occurred throughout.
• Version 2.1 - This was a significant release with new articles, new functionality, and minor updates throughout.
• Version 2.0 - This was a major release of the SEBoK which included incorporation of multi-media and a number
of changes to the functions of the SEBoK.
• Version 1.9.1 - This was a micro release of the SEBoK which included updates to the editorial board, and a
number of updates to the wiki software.
• Version 1.9 - This was a minor update which included updates to the System Resilience article in Part 6: Related
Disciplines, as well as a major restructuring of Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples. A new
example has been added around the use of model based systems engineering for the thirty-meter telescope.
• Version 1.8 - This was a minor update, including an update of the Systems of Systems (SoS) knowledge area in
Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering where a number of articles were updated on the basis of
developments in the area as well as on comments from the SoS and SE community. Part 6: Related Disciplines
included updates to the Manufacturability and Producibility and Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability
articles.
• Version 1.7 - This was a minor update, including a new Healthcare SE Knowledge Area (KA), expansion of the
MBSE area with two new articles, Technical Leadership and Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability and a
new case study on the Northwest Hydro System.
• Version 1.6 - This was a minor update, including a reorganization of Part 1 SEBoK Introduction, a new article on
the Transition towards Model Based Systems Engineering and a new article giving an overview of Healthcare
Systems Engineering, a restructure of the "Systems Engineering and Specialty Engineering" (now Systems
Engineering and Quality Attributes) KA.
• Version 1.5 - This was a minor update, including a restructure and extension of the Software
Engineering Knowledge Area, two new case studies, and a number of corrections of typographical errors and
updates of outdated references throughout the SEBoK.
• Version 1.4 - This was a minor update, including changes related to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015 standard, three
new case studies and updates to a number of articles.
• Version 1.3 - This was a minor update, including three new case studies, a new use case, updates to several
existing articles, and updates to references.
• Version 1.2 - This was a minor update, including two new articles and a revision of several existing articles.
• Version 1.1 - This was a minor update that made modest content improvements.
• Version 1.0 - This was the first official version of the SEBoK intended for broad use and was released 15
September 2012.
Click on the links above to read more information about each release.
References
[1] http:/ / www. incose. org
[2] http:/ / www. computer. org
[3] https:/ / ieeesystemscouncil. org/
SEBoK Sponsors
Sponsors provide critical funding that supports the infrastructure around the SEBoK. These organizations
have demonstrated their commitment to systems engineering through their support of the SEBoK and we are
very grateful for their support.
Global Sponsors
Corporate Partners
Coming soon!
Academic Partners
SEBoK Sponsors 11
Sponsorship Packages
If you are interested in sponsoring the SEBoK, please contact us at sebok@incose.net [2].
Level
Global Sponsor Corporate Partner Academic Partner
Logo on all SEBoK Pages (Rotating) 10 seconds 5 seconds 5 seconds
Logo on SEBoK Sponsor Page ✓ ✓ ✓
Logo Linked to Specified URL ✓ ✓ ✓
Video(s) on SEBoK Sponsor Page Up to 2 (incl.) $250 $250
Social Media Announcement on Sign up/Renewal ✓ ✓ ✓
Sponsored Knowledge Area Up to 2 (incl.) 1 (incl.) $250
Annual Impact Statement ✓ ✓ ✓
$5,000/year $2,000/year $1,000/year
Bkcase Wiki:Copyright
Please read this page which contains information about how and on what terms you may use, copy, share,
quote or cite the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK):
Copyright and Licensing

A compilation copyright to the SEBoK is held on behalf of the BKCASE Board of Governors by The Trustees of the
Stevens Institute of Technology ©2023 ("Stevens") and copyright to most of the content within the SEBoK is also
held by Stevens. Prominently noted throughout the SEBoK are other items of content for which the copyright is held
by a third party. These items consist mainly of tables and figures. In each case of third party content, such content is
used by Stevens with permission and its use by third parties is limited. If you have questions about content used with
permission in the SEBoK, contact us at sebok@incose.net [2].
Stevens is publishing those portions of the SEBoK to which it holds copyright under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. See http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/
by-nc-sa/ 3. 0/ deed. en_US for details about what this license allows. This license does not permit use of third party
material but gives rights to the systems engineering community to freely use the remainder of the SEBoK within the
terms of the license. Stevens is publishing the SEBoK as a compilation including the third party material under the
terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). See http:/
/ creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-nc-nd/ 3. 0/ for details about what this license allows. This license will permit
very limited noncommercial use of the third party content included within the SEBoK and only as part of the SEBoK
compilation. Additionally, the U.S. government has limited data rights associated with the SEBoK based on their
support for the SEBoK development.
Bkcase Wiki:Copyright 12
Attribution
When using text material from the SEBoK, users who have accepted one of the Creative Commons Licenses
described above must attribute the work as follows:
This material is used under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
from The Trustees of the Stevens Institute of Technology.
When citing the SEBoK in general, please refer to the format described on the Cite the SEBoK page.
When using images, figures, or tables from the SEBoK, please note the following intellectual property (IP)
classifications:
• Materials listed as "SEBoK Original" may be used in accordance with the Creative Commons attribution (above).
• Materials listed as "Public Domain" may be used in accordance with information in the public domain.
• Materials listed as "Used with Permission" are copyrighted and permission must be sought from the copyright
owner to reuse them. If you have any questions about this, please contact us at sebok@incose.net [2].
13
Table of Contents
SEBoK Table of Contents

Navigating the SEBoK
Parent Article | Next Article >

• Previous - The "Previous" link will take you back one article in the table of contents.
• Next - The "Next" link will take you forward one article in the table of contents.
• Parent - The "Parent" link takes you up one level in the table of contents.)
Part 1: SEBoK Introduction

• Introduction to the SEBoK
• Scope of the SEBoK
• Structure of the SEBoK
• Introduction to Systems Engineering
• Systems Engineering Overview
• Fundamentals for Digital Engineering
• Economic Value of Systems Engineering
• A Brief History of Systems Engineering
• Systems Engineering: Historic and Future Challenges
• Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines
• Fundamentals for Future Systems Engineering
• SEBoK Users and Uses
• Guidance for Systems Engineering Novices
• Guidance for Systems Engineers
• Guidance for Engineers
• Guidance for Systems Engineering Customers
• Guidance for Educators and Researchers
• Guidance for General Managers
Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering

• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering Fundamentals
• Introduction to Systems Engineering Fundamentals
• Systems Engineering Core Concepts
• Systems Engineering Principles
• Systems Engineering Heuristics
• Knowledge Area: The Nature of Systems
• Types of Systems
• Cycles and the Cyclic Nature of Systems
• Knowledge Area: Systems Science
• History of Systems Science
• Systems Approaches
• Complexity
• Emergence
• Knowledge Area: Systems Thinking
• What is Systems Thinking?
• Concepts of Systems Thinking
• Principles of Systems Thinking
• Patterns of Systems Thinking
• Knowledge Area: Representing Systems with Models
• What is a Model?
• Why Model?
• Types of Models
• System Modeling Concepts
• Integrating Supporting Aspects into System Models
• Modeling Standards
• Knowledge Area: Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems
• Overview of the Systems Approach
• Engineered System Context
• Identifying and Understanding Problems and Opportunities
• Synthesizing Possible Solutions
• Analysis and Selection between Alternative Solutions
• Implementing and Proving a Solution
• Deploying, Using, and Sustaining Systems to Solve Problems
• Applying the Systems Approach
Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management

• Systems Engineering STEM Overview
• Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)
• Knowledge Area: Systems Lifecycle Approaches
• Generic Life Cycle Model
• Applying Life Cycle Processes
• Life Cycle Processes and Enterprise Need
• Knowledge Area: System Lifecycle Models
• System Lifecycle Process Drivers and Choices
• System Lifecycle Process Models: Vee
• System Lifecycle Process Models: Incremental
• System Life Cycle Process Models: Agile Systems Engineering
• Process Integration
• Lean Engineering
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering Management
• Technical Planning
• Assessment and Control
• Decision Management
• Risk Management
• Configuration Management
• Information Management
• Quality Management
• Measurement
• Knowledge Area: Business and Mission Analysis
• Business or Mission Analysis
• System Views - Coming Soon!
• Stakeholder Needs Definition from Stakeholder Needs and Requirements
• Stakeholder Requirements Definition
• Knowledge Area: System Architecture Definition - Coming Soon!
• Functional Architecture - Coming Soon!
• Logical Architecture
• Physical Architecture
• Detailed Design Definition
• System Analysis
• System Realization
• System Implementation
• System Integration
• System Verification
• System Transition
• System Validation
• System Operation
• Knowledge Area: System Maintenance
• Logistics
• Service Life Management
• Service Life Extension
• Capability Updates, Upgrades, and Modernization
• System Disposal and Retirement
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering Standards
• Relevant Standards
• Alignment and Comparison of Systems Engineering Standards
• Application of Systems Engineering Standards
Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering

• Knowledge Area: Product Systems Engineering
• Product Systems Engineering Background
• Product as a System Fundamentals
• Business Activities Related to Product Systems Engineering
• Product Systems Engineering Key Aspects
• Product Systems Engineering Special Activities
• Knowledge Area: Service Systems Engineering
• Service Systems Background
• Fundamentals of Services
• Properties of Services
• Scope of Service Systems Engineering
• Value of Service Systems Engineering
• Service Systems Engineering Stages
• Knowledge Area: Enterprise Systems Engineering

• Enterprise Systems Engineering Background
• The Enterprise as a System
• Related Business Activities
• Enterprise Systems Engineering Key Concepts
• Enterprise Systems Engineering Process Activities
• Enterprise Capability Management
• Knowledge Area: Systems of Systems (SoS)
• Architecting Approaches for Systems of Systems
• Socio-Technical Features of Systems of Systems
• Capability Engineering
• Mission Engineering
• Knowledge Area: Healthcare Systems Engineering
• Overview of the Healthcare Sector
• Systems Engineering in Healthcare Delivery
• Systems Biology
• Lean in Healthcare
Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering

• Knowledge Area: Enabling Businesses and Enterprises
• Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy
• Determining Needed Systems Engineering Capabilities in Businesses and Enterprises
• Organizing Business and Enterprises to Perform Systems Engineering
• Assessing Systems Engineering Performance of Business and Enterprises
• Developing Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises
• Culture
• Knowledge Area: Enabling Teams
• Team Capability
• Team Dynamics
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Technical Leadership in Systems Engineering
• Knowledge Area: Enabling Individuals
• Roles and Competencies
• Assessing Individuals
• Developing Individuals
• Ethical Behavior
Part 6: Related Disciplines

• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Environmental Engineering
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
• Overview of Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
• Relationship between Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
• Further Insights into Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Project Management
•
The Nature of Project Management
•
An Overview of the PMBOK® Guide
•
Relationships between Systems Engineering and Project Management
•
The Influence of Project Structure and Governance on Systems Engineering and Project Management
Relationships
• Portfolio Management
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Software Engineering
• Software Engineering in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle
• The Nature of Software
• An Overview of the SWEBOK Guide - New article
• Key Points a Systems Engineer Needs to Know about Software Engineering
• Software Engineering Features - Models, Methods, Tools, Standards, and Metrics
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Aerospace Engineering - Coming Soon!
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Electrical Engineering - Coming Soon!
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Mechanical Engineering
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Civil Engineering - Coming Soon!
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Economics - Coming Soon!
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Enterprise IT
• Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes
• A Framework for Viewing Quality Attributes from the Lens of Loss
• Human Systems Integration
• Manufacturability and Producibility
• System Adaptability
• System Affordability
• System Hardware Assurance
• System Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability
• System Resilience
• System Resistance to Electromagnetic Interference
• System Safety
• System Security - New article
Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples

• Matrix of Implementation Examples
• Implementation Examples
• Construction System Examples - Coming Soon!
• CyberPhysical System Examples - Coming Soon!
• Defense System Examples
• Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems
• Virginia Class Submarine
• Geospatial System Examples - Coming Soon!
• Information System Examples
• Complex Adaptive Taxi Service Scheduler
• Successful Business Transformation within a Russian Information Technology Company
• FBI Virtual Case File System
• Management System Examples
• Project Management for a Complex Adaptive Operating System
• Medical System Examples
• Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump
• Medical Radiation
• Design for Maintainability
• Space System Examples
• Global Positioning System Case Study
• Global Positioning System Case Study II
• Russian Space Agency Project Management Systems
• How Lack of Information Sharing Jeopardized the NASA/ESA Cassini/Huygens Mission to Saturn
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Applying a Model-Based Approach to Support Requirements Analysis on the Thirty-Meter Telescope
• Miniature Seeker Technology Integration Spacecraft
• Apollo 1 Disaster
• Transportation System Examples
• Denver Airport Baggage Handling System
• FAA Advanced Automation System (AAS)
• Federal Aviation Administration Next Generation Air Transportation System
• UK West Coast Route Modernisation Project
• Reverse Engineering a UAV Prototype using Agile Practices - New article
• Standard Korean Light Transit System Vignette
• Utilities Examples
• Northwest Hydro System
• Singapore Water Management
Part 8: Emerging Knowledge

• Emerging Topics
• Introduction to SE Transformation
• Socio-technical Systems
• Artificial Intelligence
• Verification and Validation of Systems in Which AI is a Key Element
• Transitioning Systems Engineering to a Model-based Discipline
• Model-Based Systems Engineering Adoption Trends 2009-2018
• Digital Engineering
• Set-Based Design
• System of Systems and Complexity
• Emerging Research
Go to First SEBoK Article >

20
SEBoK Introduction
The purpose of the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) is to provide a widely accepted,
community-based, and regularly updated baseline of systems engineering (SE) knowledge. SEBoK Part 1 contains
an introduction to both the discipline of SE, and an introduction to and guide for the use of the SEBoK wiki.
Figure 1. SEBoK Part 1 in context (SEBoK Original). For more detail see Structure of the
SEBoK
Part 1 also includes an introduction to some of the emerging aspects of systems engineering and a discussion of how
these are transforming the discipline. As this knowledge matures, it will be migrated into the main body of the
SEBoK.
SEBoK Introduction 21
Part 1 Knowledge Areas

Each part of the SEBoK is divided into knowledge areas (KAs), which are groupings of information with a related
theme. Part 1 contains the following KAs:
• Introduction to the SEBoK
• Introduction to Systems Engineering
• Introduction to SE Transformation
• Set Based Design
• SEBoK Users and Uses
Scope and Context of the SEBoK

While Part 1 introduces Systems Engineering knowledge areas, the remaining SEBoK content (Parts 2 – 6) focuses
on domain-independent information—that which is universal to systems engineering regardless of the domain in
which it is applied. Part 7 includes examples from real projects. These illustrate the concepts discussed elsewhere in
the SEBoK, while detailing considerations relevant to domains such as aerospace, medicine, and transportation.
SE in the context of engineered systems (ES) is the primary scope for the SEBoK, though general systems concepts
are also discussed in Part 2. The SEBoK also covers considerations for the disciplines of software engineering and
project management, which are strongly intertwined with the practice of SE (see Part 6).
References
Works Cited
None
Primary References
None
< Return to Table of Contents | Parent Article | Next Article >

22
Introduction to the SEBoK
Introduction to the SEBoK

The SEBoK provides a widely accepted, community-based, and regularly updated baseline of systems engineering
(SE) knowledge. Therefore, it is a curated body of knowledge which is updated on a semi-annual basis. This baseline
strengthens the mutual understanding across the many disciplines involved in developing and operating systems.
Topics
Each part of the SEBoK is divided into KAs (knowledge areas), which are groupings of information with a related
theme. The KAs are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
• Scope of the SEBoK
• Structure of the SEBoK
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, Fourth
Edition. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-004.
INCOSE. 2012. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, version
3.2.2. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.
Sage, A. and W. Rouse, Eds. 2009. Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ,
USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Additional References
None.
< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article >

Scope of the SEBoK

The SEBoK is a large, curated compendium of information about systems engineering. It:
• is a guide to the body of SE knowledge which provides references to detailed sources for additional information;
it is not a self-contained knowledge resource
• focuses on Engineered Systems contexts, that is socio-technical systems with a recognized SE life cycle, while
treating social and natural systems as relevant and important environmental considerations (see Part 2)
• describes generic SE life cycle and process knowledge (see Part 3)
• recognizes that SE principles can be applied differently to different types of products, services, enterprises, and
systems of systems (SoS) context (see Part 4)
• provides resources for organization support of SE activities (see Part 5)
• explores the interaction between SE and other disciplines, highlighting what systems engineers need to know
about these disciplines (see Part 6)
• is domain-independent, with implementation examples to provide domain-specific context (see Part 7)
Each of these considerations depends upon the definition and scope of SE itself, which is the subject of the next
section.
SEBoK Purposes
Ongoing studies of system cost and schedule failures (Gruhl & Stutzke 2005; Johnson 2006, GAO 2016) and safety
failures (Leveson 2012) have shown that the failures have mostly come not from their domain disciplines, but from
lack of adequate Systems Engineering (NDIA 2003, 2006, 2016). To provide a foundation for the mutual
understanding of SE needed to reduce these failures, the SEBoK describes the boundaries, terminology, content, and
structure of SE. In so doing, the SEBoK systematically and consistently supports six broad purposes, described in
Table 1.
Table 1. SEBoK Purposes. (SEBoK Original)

# Purpose Description
1 Inform Practice Inform systems engineers about the boundaries, terminology, and structure of their discipline and point them to useful
information needed to practice SE in any application domain.
2 Inform Research Inform researchers about the limitations and gaps in current SE knowledge that should help guide their research
agenda.
3 Inform Interactors Inform performers in interacting disciplines (system implementation, project and enterprise management, other
disciplines) and other stakeholders of the nature and value of SE.
4 Inform Curriculum Inform organizations defining the content that should be common in undergraduate and graduate programs in SE.
Developers
5 Inform Certifiers Inform organizations certifying individuals as qualified to practice systems engineering.
6 Inform SE Staffing Inform organizations and managers deciding which competencies practicing systems engineers should possess in
various roles ranging from apprentice to expert.
The SEBoK is a guide to the body of SE knowledge, not an attempt to capture that knowledge directly. It provides
references to more detailed sources of knowledge, all of which are generally available to any interested reader. No
proprietary information is referenced, but not all referenced material is free—for example, some books or standards
must be purchased from their publishers. The criterion for including a source is simply that the authors & editors
believed it offered the best generally available information on a particular subject.
The SEBoK is global in applicability. Although SE is practiced differently from industry to industry and country to
country, the SEBoK is written to be useful to systems engineers anywhere. The authors & editors were chosen from
diverse locales and industries, and have refined the SEBoK to broaden applicability based on extensive global
reviews of several drafts.
The SEBoK aims to inform a wide variety of user communities about essential SE concepts and practices in ways
that can be tailored to different enterprises and activities while retaining greater commonality and consistency than
would be possible without the SEBoK. Because the world in which SE is being applied continues to evolve and is
dynamic, the SEBoK is designed for easy, continuous updating as new sources of knowledge emerge.
SEBoK Uses
The communities involved with SE include its various specialists, engineers from disciplines other than systems
engineering, managers, researchers, and educators. This diversity means that there is no single best way to use the
SEBoK. The SEBoK includes use cases that highlight potential ways that particular communities can draw upon the
content of the SEBoK, identify articles of interest to those communities, and discuss primary users (those who use
the SEBoK directly) and secondary users (those who use the SEBoK with assistance from a systems engineer). For
more on this, see the article SEBoK Users and Uses.
SEBoK Domain Independent Context

The SEBoK uses language and concepts that are generally accepted for domain-independent SE. For example, the
domain-independent conceptual foundations of SE are elaborated in Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering.
However, each of the numerous domains in which SE is practiced — including telecommunications, finance,
medicine, and aerospace — has its own specialized vocabulary and key concepts. Accordingly, the SEBoK is
designed to show how its domain-independent material relates to individual domains in two ways.
Firstly, by means of examples that tell stories of how SE is applied in particular domains. Part 7: Systems
Engineering Implementation Examples ) consists of examples (case studies and vignettes), each set in a particular
domain such as aerospace, medicine, or software, and featuring vocabulary and concepts special to that domain.
There are similar vignettes in some of the Use Cases in Part 1. These examples demonstrate the effect of domain on
the application of SE and complement the domain-independent information elsewhere in the SEBoK. They show
how a concept works in a given domain and provide a fair opportunity for reviewers to reflect on whether there are
better ways to capture application-dependent aspects of SE knowledge.
In addition, the SEBoK will contain knowledge areas in Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering which
explicitly describe the domain specific language, approaches, specialized processes and tools, etc. of particular
application domains. In this version of the SEBoK, there are a limited set of domain knowledge areas.
References
Works Cited
GAO. 2016. Weapon System Requirements. Detailed Systems Engineering Prior to Product Development Positions
Programs for Success. Government Accounting Office Report to Congressional Committees.
Gruhl, W. and Stutzke, R. 2005. "Werner Gruhl analysis of SE investments and NASA overruns," in R. Stutzke,
Estimating Software-Intensive Systems. Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley, page 290.
Johnson, J. 2006. My Life Is Failure: 100 Things You Should Know to Be a Better Project Leader. Boston, MA,
USA: Standish Group International.
Leveson, N. 2012. Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT
Press, NDIA (National Defense Industrial Association). 2003. Top 5 Systems Engineering Issues within DOD and
Defense Industry: Task Report. Version 9, released 1/23/03. Available at: https:/ / www. aticourses. com/ sampler/
TopFiveSystemsEngineeringIssues_In_DefenseIndustry.pdf [1]. Accessed October 25, 2019.
NDIA (National Defense Industrial Association). 2006. Top 5 Systems Engineering Issues within DOD and Defense
Industry DOD and Defense Industry: Task Report. Version 8a, released July 26-27, 2006. Available at: https:/ /
ndiastorage. blob. core. usgovcloudapi. net/ ndia/ 2006/ systems/ Wednesday/ rassa5. pdf. Accessed October 25,
2019.
NDIA (National Defense Industrial Association). 2016. Top Systems Engineering Issues In US Defense Industry
2016. Version 7c. Available at: https:/ / www. ndia. org/ -/ media/ sites/ ndia/ divisions/ systems-engineering/
studies-and-reports/ndia-top-se-issues-2016-report-v7c.ashx?la=en.Accessed October 25, 2019.
Primary References
None.
None.

References
[1] https:/ / ndiastorage. blob. core. usgovcloudapi. net/ ndia/ 2006/ systems/ Wednesday/ rassa5. pdf
Structure of the SEBoK

The Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) is a living authoritative guide that discusses
knowledge relevant to Systems Engineering. SEBoK does not contain all of this knowledge itself but provides a
starting point and key resources to allow the reader to navigate the wider body of knowledge that exists in published
sources. To do this, SEBoK:
• Defines relevant knowledge and structures it to facilitate understanding.
• Provides short discussions of key ideas, principles and concepts within that structure.
• Points to reference sources important to the discipline, which explore these ideas in more detail.
In doing this, it is inevitable that differences in terminology, alternative approaches, and even fundamentally
different ways of thinking within the knowledge will appear. SEBoK attempts were possible to provide clarity of
similar or overlapping ideas, or to highlight real differences and the reasons behind them. In particular, the SEBoK
Glossary of Terms contains the most used or generally agreed upon definitions of terms when it can, but may
highlight more than one definition if needed to show breadth of current thinking.
SEBoK Structure
Figure 1, below, illustrates the eight parts of the SEBoK and how they are related.
Figure 1 Scope of SEBoK Parts and related knowledge (SEBoK Original).
The scope of each part and the key relationships amongst them are briefly discussed below. For a more detailed
discussion of how this structure was evolved, see (Adcock et al, 2016).
Overview of Parts

This part explains the scope, context, and structure of the SEBoK, and of systems engineering (SE).
An overview of who should use the SEBoK, and for what purpose, is followed by detailed use cases. Systems
engineering’s economic value, history, and relationship to other disciplines are discussed. Part 1 also contains a
section which discusses the future evolution of the SEBoK and allows for new areas of content to be introduced
before being transitioned into other SEBoK parts.

This part provides an introduction and overview of areas of knowledge which provide the foundations of SE.
A discussion of the definitions and basic concepts of systems is followed by an overview of the principles, concepts,
methods, models and patterns of some of the key foundational areas of systems science. This includes a detailed
consideration of the foundational knowledge related to systems models and modelling.
Part 2 looks in more detail at two aspects of this foundational knowledge of particular value to SE. The first is to
discuss aspects of systems knowledge related to a systems approach to complex problems and opportunities. This
approach provides foundations for how SE is defined and practiced (see Parts 3 and 5 below). The second is to
describe the different ways in which system concepts are applied to real world concerns. The SEBoK defines an
engineered system (ES) as the primary focus for the application of SE (see Part 4 below).
Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management

This part describes generic knowledge on the practice of SE and related management activities.
Part 3 begins with the life cycle models common in SE and the general principles behind their application. It then
moves on to SE management activities. It covers both technical activities such as requirements, architecture, test and
evaluation; and management activities such as planning, measurement, and risk. Next is product and service life
management, a distinct area of SE management that emphasizes the entire life cycle including retirement and
disposal. An account of SE standards concludes this part.
Focused on what many think of as the main body of SE, including best practices and common pitfalls, this part
constitutes a substantial proportion of the SEBoK. As already discussed, the knowledge in Part 3 is based on the
systems approach from Part 2. The links between Part 3 and the other parts of the SEBoK are discussed below.

This part describes how to apply SE principles to different types of system context.
Part 4 focuses on four major engineered system contexts in turn: products, services, enterprises, and systems of
systems (SoS). For each one, the system abstraction, commercial relationships and application of generic SE is
described.
The generalized contexts above should be viewed as overlapping models of how SE can be applied in different kinds
of situations. Combinations of one or more of them are fully realized when applied in an application domain. Part 4
currently describes this application in a small number of such domains. This will be expanded in later updates. The
applications of SE in this part describe the real-world practice of SE. The generalized knowledge in both Parts 2 and
3 evolves through what we learn from these applications. Part 2 includes a discussion of this relationship between
theory and practice.

This part describes approaches to organization that may enable the successful performance of SE activities.
Part 4 covers knowledge at the enterprise, team, or individual level. The range of considerations extends from value
proposition, business purpose, and governance, down to competency, personal development as a systems engineer,
and ethics.
All of these relate to the baseline definitions of SE in Part 3, further generalized in the levels of application in Part 4.
The systems approach in Part 2 should also form a foundation for this part. Since the practice of SE is
transdisciplinary, Part 5 also has a link to Part 6 as discussed below.

This part describes the relationships between SE and other disciplines.
Part 6 covers the links between SE and software engineering (SwE), project management (PM), industrial
engineering (IE) and procurement. It also describes how SE is related to specialty engineering, which describes the
various system “–ilities” (like reliability, availability, and maintainability) that SE must balance and integrate.
The knowledge in this part provides an interface to other bodies of knowledge, focused on how it is linked to Parts 3,
4 and 5 above.
Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples

A set of real-world examples of SE activities demonstrates implementations of the systems engineering knowledge
in previous parts of the SEBoK. These examples come in two forms: case studies, which refer the reader to and
summarize published examinations of the successes and challenges of SE programs, and vignettes, which are brief,
self-contained wiki articles. This part is a key place to look within the SEBoK for lessons learned, best practices, and
patterns. Many links connect material in the examples to the conceptual, methodological, and other content
elsewhere in the SEBoK.

One of the challenges associated with a body of knowledge is that cutting edge and/or emerging ideas are difficult to
include. Bodies of knowledge are based on existing literature and resources, and these often do not exist for new
topics. To address this, Part 8 of the SEBoK contains those emerging ideas and items that are not easily covered in
the other sections of the SEBoK. As these areas mature and as a body of literature is created around them, they will
be moved into the other Parts of the SEBoK.
Addenda
The SEBoK contains a Glossary of Terms, which provides authoritatively-referenced definitions of key terms. This
information is displayed when the reader hovers the mouse pointer over a glossary term within an article. It also
contains a list of Primary References, with additional information about each reference. Quicklinks in the left margin
provide additional background information, including a table of contents, a listing of articles by topic [1], and a list of
Acronyms.
References
Works Cited
Adcock, R., Hutchison, N., Nielsen, C., 2016, "Defining an architecture for the Systems Engineering Body of
Knowledge," Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon) 2016.
Primary References
None.
None.

References
[1] http:/ / sebokwiki. org/ 1. 1. 1/ index. php?title=Category:Topic
30
Introduction to Systems Engineering

The primary focus of the SEBoK is on the current baseline of knowledge describing the practice of domain
independent systems engineering (SE). This Knowledge Area (KA) contains topic articles which provide an
overview of SE practice and discuss its economic value, historic evolution and key relationships.
Topics
Each part of the SEBoK is divided into KAs, which are groupings of information with a related theme. The KAs, in
turn, are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
• Systems Engineering Overview
• Economic Value of Systems Engineering
• Systems Engineering: Historic and Future Challenges
• Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines
Systems Engineering
SE is a transdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems. Successful systems
must satisfy the needs of their customers, users and other stakeholders. Some key elements of systems engineering
are highlighted in Figure 1 and include:
• The principles and concepts that characterize a system, where a system is an interacting combination of system
elements that accomplish a defined objective(s). The system interacts with its environment, which may include
other systems, users, and the natural environment. The system elements that compose the system may include
hardware, software, firmware, people, information, techniques, facilities, services, and other support elements.
• A systems engineer is a person or role who supports this transdisciplinary approach. In particular, the systems
engineer often serves to elicit and translate customer needs into specifications that can be realized by the system
development team.
• In order to help realize successful systems, the systems engineer supports a set of life cycle processes beginning
early in conceptual design and continuing throughout the life cycle of the system through its manufacture,
deployment, use and disposal. The systems engineer must analyze, specify, design, and verify the system to
ensure that its functional, interface, performance, physical, and other quality characteristics, and cost are balanced
to meet the needs of the system stakeholders.
• A systems engineer helps ensure the elements of the system fit together to accomplish the objectives of the whole,
and ultimately satisfy the needs of the customers and other stakeholders who will acquire and use the system.
Figure 1. Key Elements of Systems Engineering. (SEBoK Original)
References
None.

Systems Engineering Overview

Systems engineering (SE) is a transdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems.
Successful systems must satisfy the needs of their customers, users and other stakeholders. This article provides an
overview of SE as discussed in the SEBoK and the relationship between SE and systems (for additional information
on this, please see Part 2).
Systems and Systems Engineering

In the broad community, the term “system” may mean a collection of technical, natural or social elements, or a
combination of all three. This may produce ambiguities at times: for example, does “management” refer to
management of the SE process, or management of the system being engineered? As with many special disciplines,
SE uses terms in ways that may be unfamiliar outside the discipline. For example, in systems science and therefore
SE, “open” means that a system is able to interact with its environment--as opposed to being "closed” to its
environment. However, in the broader engineering world we would read “open” to mean “non-proprietary” or
“publicly agreed upon.” In such cases, the SEBoK tries to avoid misinterpretation by elaborating the alternatives e.g.
“system management” or “systems engineering management”.
The SEBoK seeks to position SE within the broader scope of knowledge which considers systems as part of its
foundations. To do this without attempting to re-define general systems terminology, SEBoK introduces two related
definitions specific to SE:
• An engineered system is a technical or socio-technicalsystem which is the subject of an SE life cycle. It is a
system designed or adapted to interact with an anticipated operational environment to achieve one or more
intended purposes while complying with applicable constraints.
• An engineered system context centers around an engineered system but also includes in its relationships other
engineered, social or natural systems in one or more defined environments.
Since the province of SE is engineered systems, most SE literature assumes this in its terminology. Thus, in an SE
discussion, “system architecture” would refer to the architecture of the system being engineered (e.g., a spacecraft)
and not the architecture of a natural system outside its boundary (e.g., the solar system). In fact, a spacecraft
architecture would cover the wider system context including external factors such as changes in gravity and external
air pressure and how these affect the spacecraft's technical and human elements. Thus, the term "system architecture"
more properly refers to the engineered system context. The SEBoK tries to be more explicit about this, but may still
make these kinds of assumptions when referring directly to other SE literature.
An extensive glossary of terms identifies how terms are used in the SEBoK and shows how their meanings may vary
in different contexts. As needed, the glossary includes pointers to articles providing more detail.
For more about the definition of systems, see the article What is a System? in Part 2. The primary focus of SEBoK
Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management and Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering is on how to create
or change an engineered system to fulfill the goals of stakeholders within these wider system contexts. The
knowledge in Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering and Part 6: Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines
examines the need for SE itself to be integrated and supported within the human activity systems in which it is
performed, and the relationships between SE and other engineering and management disciplines.
Scope of Systems Engineering within the Engineered Systems Domain

The scope of SE does not include everything involved in the engineering and management of an engineered system.
Activities can be part of the SE environment, but other than the specific management of the SE function, are not
considered to be part of SE. Examples include system construction, manufacturing, funding, and general
management. This is reflected in the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) top-level definition of
systems engineering as, “A transdisciplinary and integrative approach to enable the successful realization, use, and
retirement of engineered systems, using systems principles and concepts, and scientific, technological, and
management methods” (Fellows 2019). Although SE can enable the realization of a successful system, if an activity
that is outside the scope of SE, such as manufacturing, is poorly managed and executed, SE cannot ensure a
successful realization.
A convenient way to define the scope of SE within engineering and management is to develop a Venn diagram.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between SE, system implementation, and project/systems management. Activities,
such as analyzing alternative methods for production, testing, and operations, are part of SE planning and analysis
functions. Such activities as production line equipment ordering and installation, and its use in manufacturing, while
still important SE environment considerations, stand outside the SE boundary. Note that as defined in Figure 3,
system implementation engineering also includes the software production aspects of system implementation.
Software engineering, then, is not considered a subset of SE.
Figure 3. System Boundaries of Systems Engineering, Systems Implementation, and Project/Systems Management.
(SEBoK Original)
Traditional definitions of SE have emphasized sequential performance of SE activities, e.g., “documenting

requirements, then proceeding with design synthesis …” (INCOSE 2012).Originally, the SEBoK authors & editors
departed from tradition to emphasize the inevitable intertwining of system requirements definition and system design
in the following revised definition of SE:
Systems Engineering (SE) is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of
successful systems. It focuses on holistically and concurrently understanding stakeholder needs;
exploring opportunities; documenting requirements; and synthesizing, verifying, validating, and
evolving solutions while considering the complete problem, from system concept exploration through
system disposal. (INCOSE 2012, modified.)
More recently, the INCOSE Fellows have offered an updated definition of SE that has been adopted as the official
INCOSE definition:
A transdisciplinary and integrative approach to enable the successful realization, use, and retirement of
engineered systems, using systems principles and concepts, and scientific, technological, and
management methods.
Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management elaborates on the definition above to flesh out the scope of SE more
fully.
Systems Engineering and Engineered Systems Project Life Cycle Context

SE is performed as part of a life cycle approach. Figure 2 summarizes the main agents, activities, and artifacts
involved in the life cycle of SE, in the context of a project to create and evolve an engineered system.
Figure 2. SE and Engineered System Project Life Cycle Context: Related Agents, Activities, and Artifacts. (SEBoK Original)
For each primary project life cycle phase, we see activities being performed by primary agents, changing the state of
the ES.
• Primary project life cycle phases appear in the leftmost column. They are system definition, system initial
operational capability (IOC) development, and system evolution and retirement.
• Primary agents appear in the three inner columns of the top row. They are systems engineers, systems developers,
and primary project-external bodies (users, owners, external systems) which constitute the project environment.
• The ES, which appears in the rightmost column, may be a product, a service, and/or an enterprise.
In each row:
• boxes in each inner column show activities being performed by the agent listed in the top row of that column
• the resulting artifacts appear in the rightmost box.
Arrows indicate dependencies: an arrow from box A to box B means that the successful outcome of box B depends
on the successful outcome of box A. Two-headed arrows indicate two-way dependencies: an arrow that points both
from box A to box B and from box B to box A means that the successful outcome of each box depends on the
successful outcome of the other.
For example, consider how the inevitable changes that arise during system development and evolution are handled:
• One box shows that the system’s users and owners may propose changes.
• The changes must be negotiated with the systems developers, who are shown in a second box.
• The negotiations are mediated by systems engineers, who are shown in a third box in between the first two.
• Since the proposed changes run from left to right and the counter-proposals run from right to left, all three boxes
are connected by two-headed arrows. This reflects the two-way dependencies of the negotiation.
An agent-activity-artifact diagram like Figure 1 can be used to capture complex interactions. Taking a more detailed
view of the present example demonstrates that:
• The system’s users and owners (stakeholders) propose changes to respond to competitive threats or opportunities,
or to adapt to changes imposed by independently evolving external systems, such as Commercial-off-the-Shelf
(COTS) products, cloud services, or supply chain enablers.
• Negotiation among these stakeholders and the system developers follows, mediated by the SEs.
• The role of the SEs is to analyze the relative costs and benefits of alternative change proposals and synthesize
mutually satisfactory solutions.
References
Works Cited
Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
INCOSE. 2012. Systems Engineering Handbook, version 3.2.2. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.
Fellows. 2019. INCOSE Fellows Briefing to INCOSE Board of Directors. January 2019.
Rechtin, E. 1991. Systems Architecting. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Primary References
None.

Fundamentals for Digital Engineering

Lead Authors: Emiliya Suprun, Sondoss Elsawah
The world has witnessed exponential growth in technological advancement in recent years, and systems engineering
(SE) is no exception. SE is transforming the way we design, analyze, and manage complex systems. This
transformational change leverages the use of advanced technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data,
and Internet of Things (IoT). However, the evolution of SE goes well beyond just technology advancements. This
chapter discusses digital engineering (DE) as a systemic intervention, a holistic approach to SE transformation that
involves people, processes, data, and technology.
INCOSE Vision 2035: Transforming SE

The INCOSE Vision 2035 statement (INCOSE 2021) provides insights into the global context for SE, highlighting
key trends and influencing factors expected to drive changes in the practice of SE. Some of the principal takeaways
include but are not limited to the impacts of digital transformation:
• Digital transformation, sustainability, smart systems and complexity growth, and advancements in modeling,
simulation, and visualization are trends that impact enterprise competitiveness.
• The future SE will leverage digital transformation in its tools and methods and move towards a fully model-based
SE environment.
• The changing nature of systems includes more embedded and application software, increasing amounts of data to
process, and cyber-physical systems.
• The systems of the future will be engineered by an evolving, diverse workforce reshaped by digital transformation
and systems of systems.
• Data science techniques will be infused into the SE practice, with trusted data being managed as a critical asset.
• Digital technology, including the broader application of AI, enables the transformation of how enterprises
capture, reuse, exploit, and protect knowledge through digital representation and semantic integration of all
information.
• Evolving digital ecosystems will enable automation and autonomy to perform increasingly complex tasks.
All engineering disciplines today have evolved, and modern SE needs to be supported by large amounts of data. This
requires the transformation of SE practices to DE in which technological innovations are assembled to allow for an
integrated digital approach that supports life cycle activities and develops a culture among stakeholders of working
more efficiently and effectively (DoD 2018). DE is not a destination but a journey towards the digital transformation
of engineering and enterprises. This journey requires a paradigm shift from a traditional paper-based SE to a more
integrated approach that leverages digital technology to accelerate the formalization and integration of knowledge,
fostering collaboration and adopting a more agile approach to SE.
What is DE?
DE provides an integrated digital approach that uses authoritative sources of systems data and models as a
continuum across disciplines to support lifecycle activities from concept through disposal (DoD, 2018). ABAB
(2021) defines DE as a collaborative way of working, using digital processes to enable more productive methods of
planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining assets. Collaboration with suppliers and partners is
improved through DE, reducing the risk of errors and delays. DE is reshaping the landscape of how capabilities,
assets and projects are designed and managed across many industries, including defense, transportation, construction,
healthcare delivery, and other sectors. Examples include:
• In the defense sector, DE enables the development of innovative weapon systems, reduction in acquisition
timelines and improvement of the force's readiness (Zimmerman et al. 2019).
• In transportation, DE improves the design and optimization of infrastructure systems, such as roads, bridges, and
airports, to improve safety and efficiency (Wu et al. 2022). DE drives the improvement of the resilience of critical
infrastructure systems, such as power grids, water systems, and transportation networks (Suprun et al. 2022).
• In construction, DE enables the design and construction of smarter and more sustainable buildings and
infrastructure and the reduction of construction costs and waste (Opoku et al. 2021).
• In healthcare, DE enables development of new medical devices, optimization of hospital operations, and
improvement in patient outcomes (Awad et al. 2021). The list goes on.
DE as a Systemic Intervention in Its Own Right

DE is underpinned by the view of enterprises as socio-cultural-technical systems (Sony & Naik, 2020). DE is a
systemic intervention that comprises four fundamental components: Why, What, Who and How. These components
work together to enable fundamental shifts in organizational culture, practices, and technologies to achieve
enterprise digital transformation. Figure 1 provides a holistic view of the dimensions and elements that make the DE
intervention.
Figure 1. Digital Engineering Systemic Framework

Why: Strategic Intent

The why component is critical for establishing the goals and objectives of the DE initiative, as well as for ensuring
that it aligns with the broader organizational strategy. DE is not exclusively about technology but the fact that
technology enables organizations to transform their business operations and systems and create better-informed
decisions around their organizational objectives and strategy.
As part of the process, the immediate targets of transforming SE practices include the digitalization of engineering
artifacts, information, and model sharing, while the long-term strategic vision is focused on aligning investments into
technological innovations and advanced engineering practices with organizational goals and objectives (Huang,
2020). The organizational view of digital transformation opportunities and innovation should be considered as part
of a more extensive continuous improvement process.
A clear DE strategy provides a roadmap for digital transformation, outlining the steps needed to achieve
organizational outcomes. They should also consider the organization's culture and how DE transformation will
impact the workforce as well as its existing systems and processes. A successful strategy involves stakeholder
collaboration to ensure buy-in and alignment with the organization's goals and leadership development. DoD DE
Strategy (DoD 2018) identifies the following goals that could be applied to DE activities: (i) model use for
decision-making; (ii) developing the authoritative source of truth (AST); (iii) enhancing technological innovation;
(iv) establishing collaborative environments; and (v) transforming the workforce and cultural.
A systemic approach to DE drives a shift from a technology-focused acquisition approach to a whole ecosystem
view that supports all enablers for genuine transformation, including workforce readiness and awareness of the legal
and policy environment. Moreover, the strategic view on DE allows organizations to realize the value of data and
information. Industries must collectively recognize the importance of valuing and managing data and information as
critical assets.
Who: Digitally Enabled Workforce

The who component of DE focuses on the workforce. This component is critical for ensuring industries have the
necessary skills and capabilities to embark on the DE journey. It involves identifying the skills, roles,
responsibilities, and capabilities needed for the successful digital transformation of engineering and enterprises. It is
essential to have a digitally enabled workforce trained and capable of using technological innovation to effectively
leverage digital tools and methods.
DE requires a new comprehensive set of skills and competencies beyond traditional SE and IT. It requires a
combination of technical and specific data management expertise, such as modeling and simulation, data analytics,
AI, and cybersecurity, as well as soft skills, such as communication, collaboration, and leadership. The DE
competency framework developed by Hutchison and Tao (2022) identifies the foundational digital competencies: (i)
digital literacy; (ii) DE value proposition; (iii) DoD Policy/Guidance; (iv) decision-making; (v) software literacy.
Social and cultural aspects of DE also include the need for a shift in mindset and culture. DE requires a more
collaborative agile approach to design, develop, and deploy complex systems and a willingness to adapt and embrace
change. It also requires a culture of innovation, continuous improvement and learning as technologies and tools
evolve rapidly. The growing worldwide demand for digital and systems engineers exceeds the available supply
(INCOSE 2021). Many enterprises initiate internal in-house training programs to develop their workforce further.
Nevertheless, there is a need for training and education programs and a life-long learning pipeline that empower
more system engineers with strong multi- and transdisciplinary competencies, including digital, business, leadership
and systems thinking, needed to enable collaboration across a broad range of the engineering and management
workforce globally.
What: Data, Technology, and Knowledge and Perspectives

The what component captures dimensions of integration, being data, technology, and knowledge and perspectives.
SE faces a significant obstacle today due to the extensive fragmentation among the engineering tools and data
landscape (INCOSE 2021). In DE, the use of common integrated models helps overcome these challenges.
Integration across different tools, technological solutions and data is becoming a focus for enabling collaboration,
analytics, and data-informed decision-making. Integration also ensures that the data generated by different tools are
standardized and can be seamlessly shared across different engineering disciplines.
Data is at the heart of DE, and enterprises need to invest in the capabilities for seamless collection, management, and
analysis of data to support their digital transformation. Real-time data can improve how complex systems and assets
are operated, enable informed decision-making, and allow better responses to disruptions, failures, and
environmental concerns. Nevertheless, collecting the trusted data alone is insufficient to improve SE practices. The
key is to support an integrated approach enabling the use of high-quality data, security, privacy, and accessibility in a
form that allows sharing, visualization, and analysis. For the systems and assets to be managed efficiently, it is
crucial to enable consistent, informed decision-making that relies on high-quality, robust data. An organization's
insights are only as good as its data. In other words, the value maximization from the physical system requires the
value maximization from the data and information. Valuing and managing data and information as critical assets
allow a fundamental shift towards data-driven decision-making built on a 'digital by default' culture.
Knowledge is another critical enterprise asset. Both data and knowledge must be managed appropriately for an
enterprise to continue to learn and advance. The knowledge and perspectives component of DE encompasses the
importance of understanding and sharing common mental models across stakeholders and establishing a shared
understanding of DE. Failure to address the underlying cultural shift, a change in mindset, and a new way of thinking
will result in "putting a new coat of technological paint over the same crumbling organizational walls" (Forsythe &
Rafoth 2022). Hence, DE must be approached as a cultural transformation, where stakeholders across the enterprise
are encouraged to adopt new ways of thinking and working together. This requires a top-down commitment to the
new approach and investment in training, education, and tools to enable all stakeholders to understand and work
within the new paradigm. This shift in mindset and culture can be difficult and requires leadership to drive the
change (Laskey et al. 2021).
The technology component is critical for ensuring organizations have the infrastructure, tools, and platforms to
support DE. Technology transforms how enterprises capture, reuse, exploit, and protect knowledge through digital
representation and semantic integration of all information. Evolving technology, including digital twins, modeling
and simulation tools, and data analytics and visualization tools with the broader application of AI, ML, and IoT, will
enable automation and autonomy to perform increasingly complex tasks, providing further opportunities for humans
to add value through innovation.
The key shift enabled by DE as an integrated approach is a move to collaborative data-driven problem-solving
practices. This drives culture transformation and organizational commitment to a 'single source of truth' approach to
decision-making.
How: Processes and Systems

The how component of DE focuses on processes and systems. As the future of SE, DE is model-based, leveraging
next-generation modeling and simulation powered by global digital transformation (INCOSE 2021). The right
processes and systems in place provide consistent digital transformation to deliver value throughout system
elements, disciplines, the life cycle, and the enterprise. Defined processes and structured procedures ensure that
information fits its intended purpose and can be shared and reused. Moreover, organizations must develop a
systematic approach to integrate DE tools and techniques into their existing processes and systems to allow for a
seamless flow of data, information, knowledge, and expertise.
DE opens new opportunities but also introduces new integration challenges. One of the critical challenges is the need
for interoperability and standardization. Standardized or commonly shared digital representation forms, semantics,
and vocabulary are critical for sharing digitalized engineering artefacts, especially digital models.
The core concept in DE is using digital models integrated with simulation, multi-disciplinary analysis, and
immersive visualization environments. In other words, one of DE's key technical aspects is using model-based
systems engineering (MBSE). MBSE provides a common language and framework for communicating and
managing system requirements, design, and implementation. MBSE also enables system designers and engineers to
simulate and test system behavior in a virtual environment, reducing the need for physical prototypes. The
transformation to DE is happening step by step, and the evolution goes beyond just MBSE. While MBSE is a critical
component of DE, it is only one part of a more significant shift towards digital transformation (McDermott et al.
2022). DE involves a fundamental shift in mindset and requires organizations to embrace a more collaborative
approach to problem-solving, with stakeholders from across the organization working together to develop more
efficient, effective, and responsive solutions to rapidly changing industry demands.
The key shift enabled by DE processes and systems is a move towards the end-to-end digital representation of the
enterprise to address long-standing challenges associated with complexity, uncertainty, and rapid change in
deploying and using systems. DE also drives a shift from confined and ad-hoc use of models for immediate benefits
to continuous and coherent use of models across the lifecycle to drive and accelerate organizational outcomes.
Conclusions
DE goes beyond using specific software tools and models. It builds upon the principles of SE, leveraging
technologies and modeling and simulation methods to enhance data-driven decision-making and optimize system
performance. DE is about creating a culture of innovation, collaborative problem-solving, and continuous
improvement, changing how we connect, understand, and navigate our environments.
References
Works Cited
ABAB. 2021. Digital twins: An ABAB Position paper. Australasian BIM Advisory Board.
Awad, A., S.J. Trenfield, T.D. Pollard, J.J. Ong, M. Elbadawi, L.E. McCoubrey, A. Goyanes, S. Gaisford, and AW
Basit. 2021. "Connected healthcare: Improving patient care using digital health technologies." Advanced Drug
Delivery Reviews, 178, 113958.
DoD. 2018. Digital Engineering Strategy. US Department of Defense.
Forsythe, J., and J. Rafoth. 2022. Being Digital: Why Addressing Culture and Creating a Digital Mindset are Critical
to Successful Transformation. INSIGHT, 25: 25-28.
Huang, J., A. Gheorghe, H. Handley, P. Pazos, A. Pinto, S. Kovacic, A. Collins, C. Keating, A. Sousa-Poza, G.
Rabadi, R. Unal, T. Cotter, R. Landaeta, and C. Daniels. 2020. Towards digital engineering: the advent of digital
systems engineering. International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, 10(3), 234-261.
Hutchison, N., and H.Y.S. Tao. 2022. The Digital Engineering Competency Framework (DECF): Critical Skillsets to
Support Digital Transformation. INSIGHT, 25: 35-39.
INCOSE. 2021. Engineering solutions for a better world: Systems Engineering Vision 2035. International Council
on Systems Engineering.
Laskey, K.J., M.L. Farinacci, and O.C. Diaz. 2021. Digital Engineering Fundamentals: A Common Basis for Digital
Engineering Discussions. MITRE Technical Report. The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA.
McDermott, T., K. Henderson, A. Salado, and J. Bradley. 2022. Digital Engineering Measures: Research and
Guidance. INSIGHT, 25: 12-18.
Opoku, D.G.J., S. Perera, R. Osei-Kyei, and M. Rashidi. 2021. Digital twin application in the construction industry:
A literature review. Journal of Building Engineering, 40, 102726.
Sony, M., and S. Naik. 2020. Industry 4.0 integration with socio-technical systems theory: A systematic review and
proposed theoretical model. Technology in Society, 61, 101248.
Suprun, E., S. Mostafa, R.A. Stewart, H. Villamor, K. Sturm, and A. Mijares. 2022. Digitisation of Existing Water
Facilities: A Framework for Realizing the Value of Scan-to-BIM. Sustainability, 14, 6142.
Wu, J., X. Wang, Dang, Y., and Z. Lv. 2022. Digital twins and artificial intelligence in transportation infrastructure:
Classification, application, and future research directions. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 101, 107983.
Zimmerman, P., T. Gilbert, and F. Salvatore. 2019. Digital engineering transformation across the Department of
Defense. The Journal of Defense Modelling and Simulation, 16(4):325-338.
Primary References
DoD. 2018. Digital Engineering Strategy. Arlington, VA: US Department of Defense. Available at: https:/ / ac. cto.
mil/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2018-Digital-Engineering-Strategy_Approved_PrintVersion.pdf [1]
Hutchison, N., and H.Y.S. Tao. 2022. "The Digital Engineering Competency Framework (DECF): Critical Skillsets
to Support Digital Transformation." INCOSE INSIGHT, 25: 35-39.
Laskey, K.J., M.L. Farinacci, and O.C. Diaz. 2021. Digital Engineering Fundamentals: A Common Basis for Digital
Engineering Discussions. MITRE Technical Report. The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA.
McDermott, T., K. Henderson, A. Salado, and J. Bradley. 2022. "Digital Engineering Measures: Research and
Guidance." INCOSE INSIGHT, 25: 12-18.
Zimmerman, P., T. Gilbert, and F. Salvatore. 2019. "Digital engineering transformation across the Department of
Defense." The Journal of Defense Modelling and Simulation, 16(4):325-338.
None.

References
[1] https:/ / ac. cto. mil/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2019/ 06/ 2018-Digital-Engineering-Strategy_Approved_PrintVersion. pdf
Economic Value of Systems Engineering

The Increasing Value of Systems Engineering
With traditional projects, such as railroads, reservoirs, and refrigerators, a systems engineer faced a self-contained
system that typically had relatively stable requirements, a sound scientific base, and numerous previous precedents.
As most modern systems become parts within one or more evolving systems of systems (SoS), the performance of
effective SE now takes on an ever-higher economic value, as the systems feature a rapidly increasing scale,
dynamism, interdependence, human-intensiveness, number of sources of vulnerability, and novelty.
This is corroborated by the implementation examples in Part 7. Shortfalls in SE lead to either cancellation of already
expensive systems or even more expensive systems in terms of total cost of ownership or loss of human life. Part 7
presents the problems in the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advanced Automation System
(AAS), United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Virtual Case File System, the Hubble Space Telescope
Case Study, and the Therac-25 medical linear accelerator.
On the other hand, the Global Positioning System (GPS), Miniature Seeker Technology Integration Project (MSTI),
and Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump Project all demonstrate that investment in thorough SE results in highly
cost-effective systems. Figure 1 summarizes the analyses data by Werner Gruhl, which relates investment levels in
SE to cost overruns of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) projects (Stutzke
2005). The results indicate that there is a general correlation between the amount invested in SE within a program
and cost overruns, demonstrating the critical role of properly allocating SE resources.
Figure 1. Relation of SE Investments to NASA Program Cost Overruns (Stutzke 2005). Released by NASA HDQRT/Gruhl.
Further Quantitative Evidence of the Value of Systems Engineering

Analysis of the effects of shortfalls in systems architecture and risk resolution (the results of insufficient SE) for
software-intensive systems in the 161-project Constructive Cost Model II (COCOMO™ II) database shows a
statistically significant increase in rework costs as a function of project size measured in source lines of code
(SLOC): averages of 18% rework for ten-thousand-SLOC projects and 91% rework for ten-million-SLOC projects.
This data has influenced many major system projects to reconsider initial underinvestment in SE (e.g., Boehm et al.
2004), as well as to address “how much SE is enough” by balancing the risks of under-investing in SE against those
of over-investing (often called “analysis paralysis”), as shown in Figure 2 (Boehm, Valerdi, and Honour 2008).
Figure 2. Risk-Balanced “How Much SE Is Enough” (Boehm, Valerdi, and

Honour 2008). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other
rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Typically, small projects can quickly compensate for neglected SE interface definition and risk resolution; however,
as projects grow larger and have more independently-developed components, the cost of late rework negates any
savings in reduced SE effort. Additionally, medium-sized projects have relatively flat operating regions, while very
large projects pay extremely large penalties for neglecting thorough SE. Extensive surveys and case study analyses
corroborate these results.
Survey data on software cost and schedule overruns in My Life Is Failure: 100 Things You Should Know to Be a
Better Project Leader (Johnson 2006) indicates that the primary sources of the roughly 50% of commercial projects
with serious “software overruns” are the result of shortfalls in SE (lack of user input, incomplete requirements,
unrealistic expectations, unclear objectives, and unrealistic schedules). The extensive survey of 46
government-contracted industry projects conducted by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/National Defense
Industrial Association (NDIA) illustrated a strong correlation between higher project SE capability and higher
project performance (Elm et al. 2007). Ongoing research that combined project data and survey data reported in
“Toward an Understanding of The Value of SE” (Honour 2003) and “Effective Characterization Parameters for
Measuring SE” (Honour 2010) has provided additional evidence as to the economic value of SE and further insights
on critical factors that affect SE success.
The Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model (COSYSMO), a calibrated

model for determining “how much SE is enough,” has been developed and
is discussed in (Valerdi 2008). It estimates the number of
person-months that a project needs for SE as a function of system size
(i.e., requirements, interfaces, algorithms, and operational
scenarios), modified by 14 factors (i.e., requirements understanding,
technology risk, personnel experience, etc.), which dictates the amount
of SE effort needed. Other economic considerations of SE include the
costs and benefits of reuse (Wang, Valerdi and Fortune 2010), the
management of SE assets across product lines (Fortune and Valerdi
2013), the impact of SE on project risk (Madachy and Valerdi 2010), and
the role of requirements volatility on SE effort (Pena and Valerdi
2010).
References
Works Cited
Boehm, B., Brown, A.W., Basili, V., and Turner, R. 2004. "Spiral acquisition of software-intensive systems of
systems," CrossTalk. May, pp. 4-9.
Boehm, B., R. Valerdi, and E.C. Honour. 2008. "The ROI of systems engineering: Some quantitative results for
software-intensive systems," Systems Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 221-234.
Elm, J. P., D.R. Goldenson, K. El Emam, N. Donatelli, and A. Neisa. 2008. A Survey of Systems Engineering
Effectiveness-Initial Results (with Detailed Survey Response Data). Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering
Institute, CMU/SEI-2008-SR-034. December 2008.
Fortune, J., and R. Valerdi. 2013. "A framework for systems engineering reuse," Systems Engineering, vol. 16, no. 2.
Honour, E.C. 2003. "Toward an understanding of the value of systems engineering," Proceedings of the First Annual
Conference on Systems Integration, Hoboken, NJ, USA, March 2003.
Honour, E.C. 2010. "Effective characterization parameters for measuring systems engineering," Proceedings of the
8th Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), Hoboken, NJ, USA, March 17-19, 2010.
Johnson, J. 2006. My Life Is Failure: 100 Things You Should Know to Be a Better Project Leader. Boston, MA,
USA: Standish Group International.
Madachy, R., and R. Valerdi. 2010. Automating systems engineering risk assessment, 8th Conference on Systems
Engineering Research, Hoboken, NJ.
Pena, M., and R. Valerdi. 2010. "Characterizing the impact of requirements volatility on systems engineering effort,"
25th Forum on COCOMO and Systems/Software Cost Modeling, Los Angeles, CA.
Stutzke, R. 2005. Estimating Software-Intensive Systems. Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.
Valerdi, R. 2008. The Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model (COSYSMO): Quantifying the Costs of Systems
Engineering Effort in Complex Systems. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
Wang, G., R. Valerdi, and J. Fortune. 2010. “Reuse in systems engineering,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp.
376-384.
Primary References
Boehm, B., R. Valerdi, and E.C. Honour. 2008. "The ROI of systems engineering: Some quantitative results for
software-intensive systems," Systems Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 221-234.
Honour, E.C. 2010. "Effective characterization parameters for measuring systems engineering," Proceedings of the
8th Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), Hoboken, NJ, USA, March 17-19, 2010
Engineering Effort in Complex Systems. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
Hughes, T.P. 2000. Rescuing Prometheus: Four Monumental Projects that Changed the Modern World. New York,
NY, USA: Vintage Books.
Vanek, F., R. Grzybowski, P. Jackson, and M. Whiting. 2010. "Effectiveness of systems engineering techniques on
new product development: Results from interview research at corning Incorporated." Proceedings of the 20th Annual
INCOSE International Symposium, Chicago, IL, USA, July 12-15, 2010.

A Brief History of Systems Engineering

Systems engineering may be a younger discipline than electrical or mechanical engineering, but it is by no means
"new". This article provides a brief overview of the history of systems engineering as seen through the lens of
published works.
The Fifties (1950-1959)

Mervin J. Kelly worked for Bell Labs and became president of Bell Labs in 1951. In
1950 Kelly published the article “The Bell Telephone Laboratories—An Example of an
Institute of Creative Technology” in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. In that
article Kelly discussed the progress of Bell Labs over the first half of the century. He
stated that the organization “grew in size and matured in the scope and character of its
work during the period of rapid expansion in research in the physical sciences”. From
there, he went on to describe the organization of their work. The first operational heading
he described was described as research and fundamental research. The second general
heading is of relevance to this article. That category of work was ‘systems engineering’.
He went on to describe that group of individuals by stating “…the major responsibility is
the determination of new specific systems and facilities development projects – their
operational and economic objectives and the broad technical plan to be followed. ‘Systems engineering’ controls and
guides the use of the new knowledge obtained from the research and fundamental development programs in the
creation of new telephone services and the improvement and lowering of cost of services already established…it
attempts to insure that the technical objectives of the development projects undertaken can be realized within the
framework of the new knowledge available in the reservoir and present engineering practice.”
Another early writing directed toward the role of systems engineering appeared in1956.
Schlager wrote “Increased complexity of systems recently developed in the fields of
communications, instruments, computation, and control has led to an emphasis on the
field of systems engineering. Though engineers with system functions can be found in
almost all phases of the modern electronics and aircraft industries, there seems to be no
commonly agreed upon definition of the term systems engineering. This situation is not
at all unusual, since most new fields of engineering pass through an initial period of
uncertainty and confusion. Because of the importance of this field to modern system
development, this early period should be made as brief as possible. He went on to write
that “the rise of systems engineering as a separate field has resulted in some
organizational changes in the engineering departments of many companies… typical instance is that of a systems
engineering group which has established itself on an equal level with other electrical and mechanical design groups
in the engineering department.”
E.W. Engstrom grew up in the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) Laboratories. He

became the president and CEO of that organization in 1961 and 1966 respectively.
However, in 1957 he published an article in Electrical Engineering. In the abstract,
Engstrom promised to explain the concept of systems engineering in terms of its
evolution and characteristics. The engineering of a color television system and of a
specific weapons system are used to illustrate its application. In this article, he describes
that the RCA had identified a group of individuals that “must supply a proper blending of
competence and background in each of the three areas that it contacts: research and
fundamental development, specific systems and facilities development, and operations.”
He went on to state that “the task of adapting our increasingly complex devices and
techniques to the requirements and limitations of the people who must use them has
presented modern engineering with its greatest challenge. To meet this challenge, we
have come to rely increasingly during recent years upon the comprehensive and logical
concept known as systems engineering.” The first textbook on the subject of systems engineering appears to be
Systems Engineering: An Introduction to the Design of Large-Scale Systems. It sold for $10 when published in
1957.
The Sixties and Seventies (1960-1979)

Arthur Hall also worked for Bell Telephone Laboratories. He began teaching one of the
earliest Systems Engineering course at MIT. In his book “A Methodology for Systems
Engineering”, Hall identified 5 traits of the ideal systems engineer:
1. an affinity for the systems
2. faculty of judgment
3. Creativity
4. facility in human relations, and
5. facility for expression
He also wrote: “Systems engineering is most effectively conceived of as a process that

starts with the detection of a problem and continues through problem definition, planning
and designing of a system, manufacturing or other implementing section, its use, and
finally on to its obsolescence. Further, Systems engineering is not a matter of tools alone;
It is a careful coordination of process, tools and people.”
Another interesting historical description of systems engineering appeared in a report to

the committee on science and astronautics for the U.S. House of Representatives. Bode
(1967) wrote: “…the systems engineer resembles an architect, who must generally have
adequate substantive knowledge of building materials, construction methods, and so on,
to ply his [or her] trade. Like architecture, systems engineering is in some ways an art as
well as a branch of engineering. Thus, aesthetic criteria are appropriate for it also. For
example, such essentially aesthetic ideas as balance, proportion, proper relation of means
to ends, and economy of means are all relevant in a systems-engineering discussion.
Many of these ideas develop best through experience. They are among the reasons why
an exact definition of systems engineering is so elusive.”
The U.S Department of Defense released MIL-STD-499, MILITARY STANDARD:

SYSTEM ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT in July 1969. The intent of this Mil-Std was to provide program
managers guidance for managing the systems engineering process. Later, in 1974, the DoD updated their guidance
with MIL-STD-499A. It, too, covered the process, but added the guidelines for the Systems Engineering
Management Plan (SEMP) and task statements that could be selectively applied to a DoD acquisition program.
The Eighties and Nineties (1980-1999)

The National Council on Systems Engineering (NCOSE) grew out of the need for
formally trained systems engineers. Meetings between industry and academia began in
1989 and continued through 1991. Notable names included Jeffrey Grady (GD), Dr.
David Sworder (UCSD), Dr. Brian Mar (U of Washington), Dr. Terry Bahill and Dr.
Ron Askin (U of Arizona), and Gerald Chasko (DSMC Regional Director). The group
grew to include industry and DoD representatives from the USAF, TRW, Lockheed,
Martin Marietta, MacDonnell Douglas, Aerospace Corp, Bechtel, TI, Boeing, Unixyx,
IBM and many others. In 1989, Dr. Brian Mar took the lead to begin the International
Council on Systems Engineering and is recognized as the Father of INCOSE. (Grady,
2013).
In 1995, the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (NASA/SP-6105) was published to
bring the fundamental concepts and techniques of systems engineering to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) personnel in a way that recognized the nature of NASA systems and the NASA
environment.
21st Century
In 2005, the International Standards Organization published their first standard defining
systems engineering application and management. The purpose of this ISO standard was
to define the interdisciplinary tasks which are required throughout a system's life cycle to
transform customer needs, requirements and constraints into a system solution. In
addition, it defines the entire systems engineering lifecycle. A number of related
standards followed, to include ISO/IEC TR 24748-1:2010, 15288 and 12207.
There are a many great articles documenting a more thorough history of systems
engineering that are found in the References section of this brief article.
References
Works Cited
Kelly, M. J. (1950). The Bell Telephone Laboratories-An Example of an Institute of Creative Technology.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 203(1074), 287–301.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/98407
E. W. Engstrom, "Systems engineering: A growing concept," in Electrical Engineering, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 113-116,
Feb. 1957, doi: 10.1109/EE.1957.6442968.
Schlager, Kenneth J.. “Systems engineering-key to modern development.” IRE Transactions on Engineering
Management EM-3 (1956): 64-66.
Goode, H. and Machol, R. (1957). Systems Engineering: An Introduction to the Design of Large-Scale Systems. 551
pp, McGraw-Hill book co, Inc. New York.
Arthur David Hall (1962) A Methodology for Systems Engineering. Van Nostrand.
National Research Council 1967. Applied Science and Technological Progress: A Report to the Committee on
Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https:/ /
doi.org/10.17226/21281.
Primary References
Ferris, T.L. (2007). 7.4.4 Some Early History of Systems Engineering – 1950's in IRE Publications (Part 2): The
Solution. INCOSE International Symposium, 17.
Ferris, T.L. (2007). 7.4.3 Some Early History of Systems Engineering – 1950's in IRE Publications (Part 1): The
Problem. INCOSE International Symposium, 17.
Ferris, T.L. (2008), 1.2.1 Early History of Systems Engineering (Part 3) – 1950's in Various Engineering Sources.
INCOSE International Symposium, 18: 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2008.tb00790.x
Honour, E. (2018) A historical perspective on systems engineering. February 2018. Systems Engineering 21(3).
DOI: 10.1002/sys.21432
Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain, Raed M. Jaradat, Michael A. Hamilton, Charles B. Keating, Simon R. Goerger (2013).
A Historical Perspective on Development of Systems Engineering Discipline: A Review and Analysis, Journal of
Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 10.1007/s11518-019-5440-x, 29, 1, (1-35), (2019).
Grady, Jeffrey (2013) A History of INCOSE, Presented by JOG System Engineering for the San Diego Chapter Mini
Conference. Downloaded 4/18/2022 from https:/ / sdincose. org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2013/ 11/ 2-Jeff-Grady-105A.
pdf
INCOSE website (2022). Downloaded from https://www.incose.org/about-incose
NCOSE (1994). Inaugural Issue, Systems Engineering, The Journal of the National Council of Systems Engineering.
Vol. 1, Number 1.
Buede, D. (2000) History of Systems Engineering. https:/ / www. incose. org/ about-systems-engineering/
history-of-systems-engineering.Last accessed 8/8/2020
Hallam, C. (2001). An Overview of Systems Engineering - The Art of Managing Complexity. Submitted on October
16th, 2001, for ESD.83. http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/syseng.doc.Last accessed 8/8/2020
MITRE, The Evolution of Systems Engineering, downloaded 4/18/2022 from https:/ / www. mitre. org/ publications/
systems-engineering-guide/systems-engineering-guide/the-evolution-of-systems
Page, A. (2015). The Evolution of Systems Engineering in the US Department of Defense. Located at https:/ / sdm.
mit.edu/the-evolution-of-systems-engineering-in-the-us-department-of-defense/.Last accessed 8/8/2020
The MITRE Corporation, August 2007, Evolving Systems Engineering, Bedford, MA. Available at https:/ / www.
mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/mitre_ese.pdf
Systems Engineering: Historic and Future

Challenges
Humans have faced increasingly complex challenges and have had to think systematically and holistically in order to
produce successful responses to these challenges. From these responses, generalists have developed generic
principles and practices for replicating success. Some of these principles and practices have contributed to the
evolution of systems engineering as a discipline.
Historical Perspective
Some of the earliest relevant challenges were in organizing cities. Emerging cities relied on functions such as storing
grain and emergency supplies, defending the stores and the city, supporting transportation and trade, providing a
water supply, and accommodating palaces, citadels, afterlife preparations, and temples. The considerable holistic
planning and organizational skills required to realize these functions were independently developed in the Middle
East, Egypt, Asia, and Latin America, as described in Lewis Mumford’s The City in History (Mumford 1961).
Megacities, and mobile cities for military operations, such as those present in the Roman Empire, emerged next,
bringing another wave of challenges and responses. These also spawned generalists and their ideological works, such
as Vitruvius and his Ten Books on Architecture (Vitruvius: Morgan transl. 1960). “Architecture” in Rome meant not
just buildings, but also aqueducts, central heating, surveying, landscaping, and overall planning of cities.
The Industrial Revolution brought another wave of challenges and responses. In the nineteenth century, new holistic
thinking and planning went into creating and sustaining transportation systems, including canal, railroad, and
metropolitan transit. General treatises, such as The Economic Theory of the Location of Railroads (Wellington
1887), appeared in this period. The early twentieth century saw large-scale industrial enterprise engineering, such as
the Ford automotive assembly plants, along with treatises like The Principles of Scientific Management (Taylor
1911).
The Second World War presented challenges around the complexities of real-time command and control of
extremely large multinational land, sea, and air forces and their associated logistics and intelligence functions. The
postwar period brought the Cold War and Russian space achievements. The U.S. and its allies responded to these
challenges by investing heavily in researching and developing principles, methods, processes, and tools for military
defense systems, complemented by initiatives addressing industrial and other governmental systems. Landmark
results included the codification of operations research and SE in Introduction to Operations Research (Churchman
et. al 1957), Warfield (1956), and Goode-Machol (1957) and the Rand Corporation approach as seen in Efficiency in
Government Through Systems Analysis (McKean 1958). In theories of system behavior and SE, we see cybernetics
(Weiner 1948), system dynamics (Forrester 1961), general systems theory (Bertalanffy 1968), and mathematical
systems engineering theory (Wymore 1977).
Two further sources of challenge began to emerge in the 1960s and accelerated in the 1970s through the 1990s:
awareness of the criticality of the human element, and the growth of software functionality in engineered systems.
Concerning awareness of the human element, the response was a reorientation from traditional SE toward “soft” SE
approaches. Traditional hardware-oriented SE featured sequential processes, pre-specified requirements,
functional-hierarchy architectures, mathematics-based solutions, and single-step system development. A Soft
Systems approach to SE is characterized by emergent requirements, concurrent definition of requirements and
solutions, combinations of layered service-oriented and functional-hierarchy architectures, heuristics-based
solutions, and evolutionary system development. Good examples are societal systems (Warfield 1976), soft systems
methodology (Checkland 1981), and systems architecting (Rechtin 1991 and Rechtin-Maier 1997). As with
Vitruvius, "architecting" in this sense is not confined to producing blueprints from requirements, but instead extends
to concurrent work on operational concepts, requirements, structure, and life cycle planning.
The rise of software as a critical element of systems led to the definition of Software Engineering as a closely related
discipline to SE. The Systems Engineering and Software Engineering knowledge area in Part 6: Related Disciplines
describes how software engineering applies the principles of SE to the life cycle of computational systems (in which
any hardware elements form the platform for software functionality) and of the embedded software elements within
physical systems.
Evolution of Systems Engineering Challenges

Since 1990, the rapidly increasing scale, dynamism, and vulnerabilities in the systems being engineered have
presented ever-greater challenges. The rapid evolution of communication, computer processing, human interface,
mobile power storage and other technologies offers efficient interoperability of net-centric products and services, but
brings new sources of system vulnerability and obsolescence as new solutions (clouds, social networks, search
engines, geo-location services, recommendation services, and electrical grid and industrial control systems)
proliferate and compete with each other.
Similarly, assessing and integrating new technologies with increasing rates of change presents further SE challenges.
This is happening in such areas as biotechnology, nanotechnology, and combinations of physical and biological
entities, mobile networking, social network technology, cooperative autonomous agent technology, massively
parallel data processing, cloud computing, and data mining technology. Ambitious projects to create smart services,
smart hospitals, energy grids, and cities are under way. These promise to improve system capabilities and quality of
life but carry risks of reliance on immature technologies or on combinations of technologies with incompatible
objectives or assumptions. SE is increasingly needed but increasingly challenged in the quest to make future systems
scalable, stable, adaptable, and humane.
It is generally recognized that there is no one-size-fits-all life cycle model that works best for these complex system
challenges. Many systems engineering practices have evolved in response to this challenge, making use of lean,
agile, iterative and evolutionary approaches to provide methods for simultaneously achieving high-effectiveness,
high-assurance, resilient, adaptive, and life cycle affordable systems;. The emergence of system of systems (SoS)
approaches have also been introduced, in which independent system elements developed and deployed within their
own life cycle are brought together to address mission and enterprise needs.
Creating flexible and tailored life cycles and developing solutions using combinations of engineered systems, each
with its own life cycle focus, creates its own challenges of life cycle management and control. In response to this,
enterprise systems engineering (ESE) approaches have been developed, which consider the enterprise itself as a
system to be engineered. Thus, many of the ambitious smart system projects discussed above are being delivered as a
program of managed life cycles synchronized against a top down understanding of enterprise needs. It is important
that within these approaches we create the flexibility to allow for bottom-up solutions developed by combining open,
interoperable system elements to emerge and be integrated into the evolving solutions.
More recently, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, mechatronics,
cyberphysical systems, cybersecurity, Internet of Things (IoT), additive manufacturing, digital thread, Factory 4.0,
etc. are challenging approaches to SE.
Many of the challenges above, and the SE response to them, increase the breadth and complexity of the systems
information being considered. This increases the need for up to date, authoritative and shared models to support life
cycle decisions. This has led to the development and ongoing evolution of model-based systems engineering
(MBSE) approaches.
Future Challenges
The INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2025 (INCOSE 2014) considers the issues discussed above and from this
gives an overview of the likely nature of the systems of the future. This forms the context in which SE will be
practiced and give a starting point for considering how SE will need to evolve:
• Future systems will need to respond to an ever growing and diverse spectrum of societal needs in order to create
value. Individual engineered system life cycles may still need to respond to an identified stakeholder need and
customer time and cost constraint. However, they will also form part of a larger synchronized response to
strategic enterprise goals and/or societal challenges. System life cycles will need to be aligned with global trends
in industry, economy and society, which will, in turn, influence system needs and expectations.
• Future systems will need to harness the ever-growing body of technology innovations while protecting against
unintended consequences. Engineered system products and services need to become smarter, self-organized,
sustainable, resource efficient, robust and safe in order to meet stakeholder demands.
• These future systems will need to be engineered by an evolving, diverse workforce which, with increasingly
capable tools, can innovate and respond to competitive pressures.
These future challenges change the role of software and people in engineered systems. The Systems Engineering and
Software Engineering knowledge area considers the increasing role of software in engineered systems and its impact
on SE. In particular, it considers the increasing importance of cyber-physical systems in which technology, software
and people play an equally important part in the engineered systems solutions. This requires a SE approach able to
understand the impact of different types of technology, and especially the constraints and opportunities of software
and human elements, in all aspects of thelife cycle of an engineered system.
All of these challenges, and the SE responses to them, make it even more important that SE continues its transition to
a model-based discipline.
The changes needed to meet these challenges will impact the life cycle processes described in Part 3: Systems
Engineering and Management and on the knowledge, skills and attitudes of systems engineers and the ways they are
organized to work with other disciplines as discussed in Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering and Part 6: Related
Disciplines. The different ways in which SE is applied to different types of system context, as described in Part 4:
Applications of SE, will be a particular focus for further evolution to meet these challenges. The Introduction to SE
Transformation knowledge area in SEBoK Part 1 describes how SE is beginning to change to meet these challenges.
References
Works Cited
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York, NY, USA:
George Braziller.
Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 1981.
Churchman, C.W., R. Ackoff, and E. Arnoff. 1957. Introduction to Operations Research. New York, NY, USA:
Wiley and Sons.
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2014, Systems Engineering Vision 2025 July, 2014;
Available at: http:/ / www. incose. org/ docs/ default-source/ aboutse/ se-vision-2025. pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed
February 16.
Ferguson, J. 2001. "Crouching dragon, hidden software: Software in DoD weapon systems," IEEE Software,
July/August, p. 105–107.
Forrester, J. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Pegasus Communications.
Goode, H. and R. Machol. 1957. Systems Engineering: An Introduction to the Design of Large-Scale Systems. New
York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
McKean, R. 1958. Efficiency in Government Through Systems Analysis. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Mumford, L. 1961. The City in History. San Diego, CA, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Rechtin, E. 1991. Systems Architecting. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Rechtin, E. and M. Maier. 1997. The Art of Systems Architecting. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Taylor, F. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper &
Brothers.
Vitruvius, P. (transl. Morgan, M.) 1960. The Ten Books on Architecture. North Chelmsford, MA, USA: Courier
Dover Publications.
Warfield, J. 1956. Systems Engineering. Washington, D.C., USA: US Department of Commerce (DoC).
Wellington, A. 1887. The Economic Theory of the Location of Railroads. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and
Sons.
Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. New York, NY, USA:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Wymore, A. W. 1977. A Mathematical Theory of Systems Engineering: The Elements. Huntington, NY, USA:
Robert E. Krieger.
Primary References
Boehm, B. 2006. "Some future trends and implications for systems and software engineering processes," Systems
Engineering, Wiley Periodicals, Inc., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-19.
INCOSE Technical Operations. 2007. Systems Engineering Vision 2020, version 2.03. Seattle, WA: International
Council on Systems Engineering, Seattle, WA, INCOSE-TP-2004-004-02.
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). 2014. Systems Engineering Vision 2025, July 2014.
Available at: http:/ / www. incose. org/ docs/ default-source/ aboutse/ se-vision-2025. pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed
February 16.
Warfield, J. 1956. Systems Engineering. Washington, D.C., USA: US Department of Commerce (DoC). Report
PB111801.
Warfield, J. 1976. Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Wymore, A. W. 1977. A Mathematical Theory of Systems Engineering: The Elements. Huntington, NY, USA:
Robert E. Krieger.
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Methodology. Chichester, England: Wiley.
The MITRE Corporation. 2011. "The evolution of systems engineering," in The MITRE Systems Engineering Guide.
Available at: [1]. Accessed 8 March 2012.
Sage, A. and W. Rouse (eds). 1999. Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.

References
[1] http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ evolution_systems. html
Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines

As discussed in the Scope of the SEBoK article, there are many touch points and overlaps between systems
engineering (SE) and other disciplines. Systems engineers should have a basic understanding of the nature of these
other disciplines, and often need to understand aspects of another discipline in detail. This article describes the
landscape of disciplines that are intertwined with SE. For a closer view of the individual disciplines, see Part 6.
Engineering Disciplines Other than Systems Engineering

Engineering disciplines are mostly component-oriented and value-neutral in their intellectual content (Boehm and
Jain 2006). Their underlying laws and equations, such as Ohm’s Law, Hooke’s Law, Newton’s Laws, Maxwell’s
equations, the Navier-Stokes equations, Knuth’s compendia of sorting and searching algorithms, and Fitts’s Law of
human movement, pertain to performance in a system-of-interest. They do not address how that performance
contributes to the value propositions of stakeholders.
In contrast, SE is more holistic than component-oriented, and more stakeholder value-oriented than value-neutral,
performance-oriented in its intellectual content. Realizing successful systems requires reasoning with stakeholders
about the relative value of alternative realizations, and about the organization of components and people into a
system that satisfies the often-conflicting value propositions of stakeholders. Stakeholders who are critical to the
system’s success include funders, owners, users, operators, maintainers, manufacturers, and safety and pollution
regulators.
In some disciplines, the engineer evaluates and integrates design elements into a system that satisfies proxies of
value. The wider the scope of the SoI, the broader the set of SE skills the engineer needs.
For example, an aeronautical engineer might integrate mechanical, electrical, fluid, combustion-chemical, software,
and cockpit design elements into a system that satisfies proxies of value like flight range, payload capacity, fuel
consumption, maneuverability, and cost of production and maintenance. In so doing, the engineer operates partly as
a systems engineer. The SoI is the aircraft itself and the engineer applies aircraft-domain expertise.
However, the same engineer could participate in the engineering of passenger services, airport configurations,
baggage handling, and local surface transportation options. All of these contribute to the value propositions of
success-critical stakeholders. The SoIs are wider, and the engineer needs broader SE knowledge, skills, and abilities
to operate as a systems engineer. The aircraft-domain expertise remains needed for effective engineering of the wider
systems. As discussed in (Guest 1991), most good systems engineers are “T-shaped” people, with both a working
knowledge of wider-system considerations, and a deep expertise in a relevant domain, such as aeronautical,
manufacturing, software, or human factors engineering.
Engineering disciplines that are intertwined with SE include software engineering (SwE), human factors engineering,
and industrial engineering. SwE and SE are not just allied disciplines, they are intimately intertwined (Boehm 1994).
Most functionality of commercial and government systems is now implemented in software, and software plays a
prominent or dominant role in differentiating competing systems in the marketplace. Software is usually prominent
in modern systems architectures and is often the “glue” for integrating complex system components.
The scope of SwE includes both software SE and software construction, but does not include hardware SE. Thus,
neither SwE nor SE is a subset of the other. See Figure 1 in Scope of the SEBoK. For a definition of the relationship
between the SEBoK and the Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), which is published
by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (Bourque and Fairley 2014), see Systems Engineering
and Software Engineering.
Human factors engineering, from micro-ergonomics to macro-ergonomics, is intertwined with SE (Booher 2003;
Pew and Mavor 2007). See Human Systems Integration in Part 6.
Industrial engineering overlaps significantly with SE in the industrial domain, but also includes manufacturing and
other implementation activities outside of SE. See Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering in Part 6.
Finally, to field a successful system, a systems engineer may need to know one or more of the many specialty fields
in engineering, e.g., security, safety, reliability, availability, and maintainability engineering. Most of these are
considered professional disciplines in their own right and many have their own bodies of knowledge. For
explanations of how these disciplines relate to SE, overviews of what most systems engineers need to know about
them, and references within their bodies of knowledge, see Systems Engineering and Specialty Engineering in Part 6.
Non-Engineering Disciplines
SE is intimately intertwined with two non-technical disciplines: technical management (TM), and procurement and
acquisition (also known as acquisition and procurement). TM often falls within the purview of a systems engineer.
Many SE textbooks, competency models, and university programs include material about TM. TM is a specialization
of project management (PM). SE and PM have significant common content in TM, but neither is a subset of the
other. See Figure 1 in the article Scope of the SEBoK. For a definition of the relationship between the SEBoK and
the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), which is published by the Project Management
Institute (PMI) (PMI 2013), see Systems Engineering and Project Management in Part 6.
Procurement and acquisition practitioners draw upon SE to determine the scope and overall requirements of the
system to be procured or acquired. They then prepare requests for proposals and statements of work, determine
evaluation criteria, and design source selection processes. Once a leading source is selected, they decide upon
contracting options that encompass payments, reviews, audits, incentive fees, acceptance criteria, procedures, and the
nature of deliverables. Finally, they monitor progress with respect to plans (including those for SE), and negotiate
and execute changes and corrective actions. Many of these activities amount to specialty disciplines within
procurement and acquisition. See the article Related Disciplines in Part 6.
References
Works Cited
Boehm, B. W. "Integrating Software Engineering and Systems Engineering." The Journal of NCOSE Vol. 1 (No. 1):
pp. 147-151. 1994
Boehm, B. and A. Jain. 2006. "A value-based theory of systems engineering," Proceedings, INCOSE IS 2006. Also
available at: http://sunset.usc.edu/csse/TECHRPTS/2006/usccse2006-619/usccse2006-619.pdf.
Booher, H. 2003. Handbook of Human-Systems Integration. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bourque, P. and R.E. Fairley. Eds. 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK). Los
Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Available at: http://www.swebok.org.
Guest, D. 1991. "The hunt is on for the Renaissance Man of computing." The Independent. London, England:
September 17, 1991.
Pew, R. and A. Mavor. 2007. Human-System Integration in the System Development Process. Washington, D.C.,
USA: The National Academies Press.
PMI. 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 5th ed. Newtown Square,
PA, USA: Project Management Institute (PMI).
Primary References
Bourque, P. and R.E. Fairley Eds. 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK). Los
Gallagher, B., M. Phillips, K. Richter, and S. Shrum. 2011. CMMI For Acquisition: Guidelines for Improving the
Acquisition of Products and Services, second ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Addison Wesley.
Paulk, M., C. Weber, B. Curtis, and M. Chrissis. 1995. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the
Software Process. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Addison Wesley.
Pyster, A. Ed. 2009. Graduate Software Engineering 2009 (GSwE2009): Curriculum Guidelines for Graduate
Degree Programs in Software Engineering. Integrated Software & Systems Engineering Curriculum Project.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Stevens Institute of Technology, September 30, 2009.
None.

Fundamentals for Future Systems Engineering

Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Author: Duane Hybertson
This article forms part of the Systems Fundamentals knowledge area (KA). It considers future trends in SE and how
these might influence the evolution of future fundamentals.
The SEBoK contains a guide to generalized knowledge about the practice of SE. It does not pass judgement on that
knowledge. However, it can be useful in some cases to indicate which parts of the knowledge are rooted in existing
practice and which point towards the future evolution of SE.
This article provides a sketch of how SE is changing and suggests how these changes may affect the future of
systems engineering, the SEBoK, and the foundations in Part 2.
INCOSE Vision
The INCOSE Vision 2025 statement (INCOSE 2014) depicts some future directions in:
Broadening SE Application Domains
• SE relevance and influence will go beyond traditional aerospace and defense systems and extend into the broader
realm of engineered, natural and social systems
• SE will be applied more widely to assessments of socio-physical systems in support of policy decisions and other
forms of remediation
More Intelligent and Autonomous Systems
• Systems of the future need to become smarter, self-organized, sustainable, resource-efficient, robust and safer
• The number of autonomous vehicles and transportation systems needs to increase
• Systems become more “intelligent” and dominate human-safety critical applications
Theoretical Foundations
• SE will be supported by a more encompassing foundation of theory and sophisticated model-based methods and
tools allowing a better understanding of increasingly complex systems and decisions in the face of uncertainty
• Challenge: A core body of systems engineering foundations is defined and taught consistently across academia
and forms the basis for systems engineering practice
In this article we will consider how the fundamentals of SE might need to evolve to support this vision.
How will SE Change?

In Types of Systems, we describe three general contexts in which a SE life cycle can be applied. In a product system
context, the outputs of SE focus on the delivery of technological systems. While such systems are designed to be
used by people and fit into a wider problem-solving context, this context has been seen as largely fixed and external
to SE. The service system context allows SE to consider all aspects of the solution system as part of its
responsibility. This is currently seen as a special case of SE application largely focused on software intensive
solutions. The enterprise system context offers the potential for a direct application of SE to tackle complex
socio-technical problems, by supporting the planning, development and use of combinations of service systems.
While this is done, it can be difficult to connect to the product focused life cycles of many SE projects.
The role of the systems engineer has already begun to change somewhat due to the first two of the future trends
above. Changes to the scope of SE application and the increased use of software intensive reconfigurable and
autonomous solutions will make the service system context the primary focus of most SE life cycles. To enable this,
most product systems will need to become more general and configurable, allowing them to be used in a range of
service systems as needed. These life cycles are increasingly initiated and managed as part of an enterprise portfolio
of related life cycles.

In this evolution of SE, the systems engineer cannot consider as many aspects of the context to be fixed, making the
problem and possible solution options more complex and harder to anticipate. This also means the systems engineer
has greater freedom to consider solutions which combine existing and new technologies and in which the role of
people and autonomous software can be changed to help deliver desired outcomes. For such systems to be
successful, they will need to include the ability to change, adapt and grow both in operation and over several
iterations of their life cycle. This change moves SE to be directly involved in enterprise strategy and planning, as part
of an ongoing and iterative approach to tackling the kinds of societal problems identified in the INCOSE vision.
This evolution of both the role and scope of SE will also see the system of systems aspects of all system contexts
increase. We can expect System of Systems Engineering to become part of the systems engineering of many, if not
most, SE life cycles.
Evolution of Fundamentals
These ongoing changes to SE place more emphasis on the role of autonomous agents in systems engineering, and
agency will be an area of increased emphasis in the systems engineering and SEBoK of the future. Hybertson (2019)
spells out in more detail the increased role of agents and agency in future SE. Moving from a total control model to a
shared responsibility model changes the nature of engineering to something more like collective actualization, as
proposed by Hybertson (2009 and 2019). Systems will represent a combination and interplay of technology and
social factors, and they can range from technical product to service provider to social entity. In many cases they will
be a socio-technical combination or hybrid.
The above trends have an impact on SE foundations, including technical aspects, social aspects, and ethical aspects.
Inclusion of people in systems implies significant expansion of foundation sciences, to provide principles, theories,
models, and patterns of the human, biological, social, and agent realm as well as the technical and physical realm.
Emphasis on agents implies a revised conceptualization of system change, from the traditional model of mechanistic
and controlled fixes and upgrades to a more organic change model that involves growth, self-learning,
self-organizing, and self-adapting. Ethical considerations will include how to allocate responsibility for a system in a
shared responsibility model. Further discussion of the expanded foundation and a list of foundation disciplines for
future SE are presented in (Hybertson 2009 and 2019).
References
Works Cited
Hybertson, D. (2009). Model-Oriented Systems Engineering Science: A Unifying Framework for Traditional and
Complex Systems, Boca Raton, FL, USA: Auerbach/CRC Press.
Hybertson, D. (2020 forthcoming). Systems Engineering Science. Chapter in G. S. Metcalf, H. Deguchi, and K.
Kijima (editors in chief). Handbook of Systems Science. Tokyo: Springer.
INCOSE (2014). “A world in motion: Systems engineering vision 2025.” International Council on Systems
Engineering.
Primary References
None.
None.

60
SEBoK Users and Uses
SEBoK Users and Uses

The SEBoK is intended to be a resource that can help anyone understand more about systems engineering. Systems
engineers should obviously benefit, but so can undergraduate engineering students, those new to the SE discipline, or
people who work with systems engineers and want to understand more about what to expect from systems
engineering activities. This article explores a variety of personas. Once you determine which persona best represents
you, read on to get practical advice on how to utilize the SEBoK.
Personas
In marketing, "personas" are used to illustrate potential users or customers. Personas are fictional characters that
represent a demographic of a target audience. For the SEBoK, we've developed personas that represent different
types of people who we anticipate will utilize the SEBoK:
• An engineering undergraduate student
• A new systems engineer
• An experienced systems engineer
• A chief systems engineer
• An organizational manager
• A systems engineering educator or researcher
• A general manager
Note that initial work on personas was published in (Hutchison et al. 2023). The personas published in this reference
were built upon and edited to support this article.
An Undergraduate Engineering Student

Stueti is in her final year studying electrical engineering at a private university. In her capstone, she works on a
multi-disciplinary team, including students from the mechanical and software engineering departments as well. As
the team comes together, each student starts talking about using the most advanced techniques and technologies
available in their part of the project. The discussion devolves into an argument about how to do this in the time and
budget available. Her faculty advisor says that in order to be successful, they have to work together to create a useful
product, which means that they can’t each focus on their own parts in isolation. The advisor suggests that they all
need to come to the next team meeting prepared to discuss their project as a system. Stueti Googles "systems" when
she gets back to her dorm and stumbles on the SEBoK.
For Stueti, the SEBoK begins to expose her to systems concepts. In particular, Stueti could benefit from reading the
articles in Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering, particularly The Nature of Systems, which will introduce her
to different views on and core definitions of a system. From there, the articles in the Introduction to Systems
Engineering knowledge area would be useful. Finally, Stueti reads the article Systems Engineering and Mechanical
Engineering, which relates to this new subject area that she has spent several years learning. In her reading, Stueti
finds a few references that she thinks will help her better understand this SE stuff and help her apply it.
This gives Stueti a better understanding of what her professor meant – that all the different elements of the project
(or system) must work together to achieve their project goal. As the capstone progresses, Stueti returns to the SEBoK
to find additional resources as new issues come up.
If you identify with Stueti, review the recommendation for SE novices.
A New Systems Engineer

Hans completed a master’s in computer science three years ago and has since been working for a small company in
their IT department. The team he is on has been operating and maintaining the existing customer support system,
which has become increasingly cumbersome and costly. Han's manager noticed that he was always asking good
questions, and several times Hans’s curiosity helped the team uncover the root causes of problems. Hans has also
exhibited “out of the box” thinking, which has helped create some novel solutions. Hans's computer science and
programming skills are competent. The company creating a new customer support system and, based on his
experience with the current system and his inquisitiveness, Hans’s manager asks if he would consider taking a role as
the software systems engineer. In that role, he would be reporting directly to the chief systems engineer on the
project. Hans looks forward to new responsibilities, but other than a few brief interactions with systems engineers,
he’s not sure what they do. He is enrolled in the company’s introductory systems engineering course in a few weeks,
but he wants to start understanding more about it now.
Han’s manager recommends he take a look at the SEBoK in preparation for his upcoming course. Hans, feeling a bit
nervous, decides to search the SEBoK for “computer science” and finds the page, Exploring the Relationship
between Systems Engineering and Software Engineering. This is a page about a paper by the same title, which Hans
looks up to read later. In the SEBoK, he notices that this is used in something called, Software Engineering in the
Systems Engineering Life Cycle. Hans reads this article and finds a number of related articles on the relationship
between systems engineering and software engineering, which highlight the relationships between the two. Hans is
now feeling more confident that this “systems stuff” isn’t completely different from what he has learned by applying
his computer science degree on the job.
Hans continues to explore the SEBoK, finding a collection of articles about systems thinking, which he finds useful
and which leads him to articles about the systems engineering process. He learns about lifecycle approaches and
finds an article on agile systems engineering. He is very familiar with agile approaches from his work over the last
three years. While reading the SEBoK, Hans looks at the references and identifies 6 articles and 2 books he wants to
read to get more familiar with SE. He is feeling much more confident about his ability to tackle the upcoming course
and his new role and bookmarks the SEBoK for future reference.
If you identify with Hans, review the recommendations for experienced engineers new to systems engineering.
An Experienced Systems Engineer

Yan has been working in a large company that makes medical devices for the last 10 years, ever since she earned her
undergraduate degree in electrical engineering. Within a few years of joining the company, Yan was selected for a
"high potential" program to develop new systems talent in the company. As part of the program, Yan completed her
graduate degree in systems engineering last year. Currently, she is a lead designer on one of the company’s flagship
products. She has taken all the courses her company offers around systems design and engineering and is looking for
more resources to continue to develop her skills.
Yan is aware of the SEBoK and has read a few articles but has not used it often. She decides to search the SEBoK
for “knowledge skills abilities” (KSA) as her company uses this term when evaluating performance. She finds
articles on enabling individuals, ethical behavior, and roles and competencies. She reads the roles and competencies
articles and learns about several different competency models. Primary references in these articles point her to these
models, and she decides that the NASA's Systems Engineering Competencies model seems to align well with how
her company views systems engineering. She decides to look through the competency model and see what
competencies she has and which she might want to work on. She is generally comfortable with the competencies
around the systems engineering lifecycle. She has had a few minor leadership roles, but some of the technical
management competencies are less familiar. Yan decides that learning more about technical management will
improve her skillset and make her more valuable to the company.
She skims the articles on Systems Engineering Management in the SEBoK, and the overview content is pretty
familiar. Looking through the works cited and primary references, however, she finds a few really useful references.
This leads to the definition of technical management in the SEBoK Glossary of Terms, which points to a joint
INCOSE/Project Management Institute (PMI) working group on the subject. Yan reaches out to this group and
identifies further resources for self-study. After reviewing these resources, Yan is now more familiar with the
vocabulary of technical management and looks for related short courses to help her hone her skills.
If you identify with Yan, review the SEBoK guidance for systems engineers.
A Chief Systems Engineer

Jacquie is a chief systems engineer at a mid-size electronics company. She has led teams to successfully deliver
several projects, over the years coordinating hundreds of engineers, project managers, and specialists. Jacquie has
recently been asked to step in and support the lead engineers in several smaller projects to resolve some common
challenges. She has noted that in almost every case, the issues have two root causes: lack of systems perspective and
lack of coordination between teams of different disciplines. Jacquie has seen several initiatives to move the
workforce in one direction or another fail over her 18 years with the company, so is wary of top-down mandates
saying that everyone needs to become a systems thinker or something similar.
Jacquie is a long-time user of the SEBoK and remembers that there’s a section somewhere about enabling systems
engineers. She quickly finds the section in the Outline (Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering) and she notices a
knowledge area on Enabling Businesses and Enterprises and starts reading. The articles on determining what
capabilities organizations need and developing those capabilities are particularly helpful and lead her to a Harvard
Business Review article on change management that is really useful.
Armed with this information, Jacquie gets a group of her peers together to discuss the challenges and some potential
solutions.
If you identify with Jacquie, review the recommendations for experienced systems engineers.
An Organizational Manager
The primary audience of the SEBoK is individuals working in the SE discipline, but articles are written in a way that
should enable non-systems engineers to grasp the basics.
Juan is a mid-level manager at a large firm that makes major weapons systems for his nation’s defense department.
The organization is trying to alter the culture toward a more integrative and collaborative model. This includes a
focus on systems and systems thinking. Juan's leadership has emphasized that it is critical for all levels of
management to show support for this initiative and that, without their support, the initiative cannot be successful.
Juan has never heard the term “systems thinking” before and the only connotation he has with “systems” is the
company's IT systems that are always causing headaches.
Juan Googles “systems thinking” and is immediately overwhelmed by the search results. Inundated with definitions
from companies trying to sell systems thinking services or training, universities advertising their programs, and blog
posts, which could be by experts or by people who only think they know what systems thinking is, Juan is quickly
overwhelmed. He stumbles upon something that links “systems thinking” to “systems engineering”, which is a term
he knows, though he has never been and has no desire to be an “engineer”. He refines his search to include both
“systems thinking” and “systems engineering” in Google Scholar to try to find more reputable sources. Again there
are tens of thousands of results. He goes to a systems engineer whom he often sees in the break room, and asks him
what to do. The systems engineer points him to the SEBoK.
In the SEBoK, Juan quickly finds a knowledge area on systems thinking and several articles and papers that he
believes he can trust to give authoritative information. After reading through the articles and references, Juan now
feels he has a basic understanding of what systems thinking is and he now understands why this is such a critical part
of the company’s strategy for change. Juan now has the vocabulary and knowledge to support the initiative as a
member of the management team.
If you identify with Juan, review the guidance for general managers.
References
Works Cited
Hutchison, N., A. Pyster, and R. Cloutier. 2023. "Using the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK)." in
Verma, D. (ed). Systems Engineering for the Digital Age. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Primary References
Hutchison, N., A. Pyster, and R. Cloutier. 2023. "Using the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK)." in
Verma, D. (ed). Systems Engineering for the Digital Age. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
None.

Guidance for Systems Engineering Novices

Some users of the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) may be new to the field. This article provides
recommended readings for such a user.
Learn the Basic Terms

As discussed in the Introduction to the SEBoK, there are four key terms that you should first understand when
learning about systems engineering (SE):
• A system is “a collection of elements and a collection of inter-relationships amongst the elements such that they
can be viewed as a bounded whole relative to the elements around them.” Open systems exist in an environment
described by related systems with which they may interact and conditions to which they may respond. While there
are many definitions of the word “system,” the SEBoK authors believe that this definition encompasses most of
those which are relevant to SE.
• An engineered system is an open system of technical or sociotechnical elements that exhibits emergent properties
not exhibited by its individual elements. It is created by and for people; has a purpose with multiple views;
satisfies key stakeholders’ value propositions; has a life cycle and evolution dynamics; has a boundary and an
external environment; and is part of a system-of-interest hierarchy.
• Systems engineering is “an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful
(engineered) systems.” It focuses on holistically and concurrently understanding stakeholder needs; exploring
opportunities; documenting requirements; and synthesizing, verifying, validating, and evolving solutions while
considering the complete problem, from system concept exploration through system disposal.
• A systems engineer is “a person who practices systems engineering” as defined above, and whose systems
engineering capabilities and experience include sustained practice, specialization, leadership, or authority over SE
activities. These activities may be conducted by any competent person regardless of job title or professional
affiliation.
Get an Overview
The next step for someone new to SE is get an overview of the discipline. Part 1: SEBoK Introduction contains four
articles particularly helpful to one new to SE.
• The article Systems Engineering Overview frames systems engineering inside the larger topic of ‘Systems
Science.’
• The article Economic Value of Systems Engineering makes the business case for investing in systems engineering
as a way to reduce total ownership cost.
• The article Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines discusses briefly how systems engineers and other
engineers interact as they develop complex systems together.
• Finally, the article Systems Engineering: Historic and Future Challenges gives a quick history of the discipline
and discusses what lies ahead.
Learn About Systems

Engineering is often described as the application of science to develop new products or systems. Part 2: Foundations
of Systems Engineering describes some of the underlying systems principles that form the foundation for systems
engineering.
• The Knowledge Area on Systems Fundamentals contains five articles. What is a System? is recommended for a
new user.
• The Knowledge Area on Systems Science presents two articles on its history and approaches. Both are
recommended.
• The Knowledge Area on Systems Thinking has four articles. The first, What is Systems Thinking?, is
recommended on a first reading.
• One of the most important current research and practice areas of SE is Model Based Systems Engineering
(MBSE). The Knowledge Area Representing Systems with Models provides the foundation for MBSE. The first
three of the five articles in the KA are recommended.
Learn How the Systems Approach Is Applied to Engineered Systems

The Knowledge Area Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems describes how systems science and systems
thinking lead to the practice of systems engineering. All eight articles are recommended.
• Stakeholder Needs and Requirements
Explore the Methods of Systems Engineering

The SEBoK uses a life-cycle framework to describe the processes that comprise systems engineering. Part 3: SE and
Management contains the plurality of the content of the SEBoK in eight knowledge areas. A new user should be
familiar with the introductions to each of these Knowledge Areas, and should read further in those KAs of interest.
• Life Cycle Models
• Concept Definition
• System Definition
• System Deployment and Use
• Systems Engineering Management
• Product and Service Life Management
• Systems Engineering Standards
Explore the Applications of Systems Engineering

The SEBoK partitions the body of knowledge between methods and areas of application. Areas of application are
classified as:
• Product Systems Engineering
• Service Systems Engineering
• Enterprise Systems Engineering
• Systems of Systems (SoS)
A new user should read the introduction to Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering and to the four knowledge
areas listed above. The reader’s interests can then suggest which further reading should be done.
Read Case Studies

Finally, the new user should scan the case studies and vignettes in Part 7: SE Implementation Examples and read a
few of those in areas that appeal to the reader. This will help reinforce the fundamentals as well as illustrate the
practice of SE.
The following case studies are included:
• Hubble Space Telescope Case Study
• Medical Radiation Case Study
• FBI Virtual Case File System Case Study
• MSTI Case Study
• Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump Case Study
For Later Reading

Part 6: Related Disciplines contains a broad selection of Knowledge Areas and Topics that describe how systems
engineers work with other disciplines. The Knowledge Area on SE and Software Engineering is particularly
important, as modern systems get much of their functionality from software.
Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering has KAs describing how individuals, teams, and organizations can develop to
practice effective systems engineering.
A person new to SE should become familiar with several references that are beyond the SEBoK. They include the
INCOSE Handbook, several standards (listed in Relevant Standards), and the main journals of systems engineering
(including but not limited to Systems Engineering, the Journal of Enterprise Transformation, and Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics).
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
None.
None.
Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article >

Guidance for Systems Engineers

Both for the entry-level systems engineer learning the discipline of systems engineering (SE), and the more
experienced systems engineer seeking the knowledge required to accomplish a work activity, the SEBoK serves as a
primary information source and a quick, comprehensive reference for SE information.
What these system engineers find in the SEBoK includes:
• definitions of terms,
• explanations of basic concepts and principles,
• useful discussions of topics,
• references to articles and textbooks that cover topics in-depth, and
• pointers to additional sources.
How Systems Engineers Use Topics

Researching SE-related subjects, identifying educational resources, and connecting with individuals or organizations
which offer specialized expertise are all part of the job for the practicing systems engineer. The time available to the
SE for these activities can be quite limited. The SEBoK is designed to ease the pressure on the systems engineer in
this situation, in several ways:
• Because its content is based on research, proven practices, and emerging knowledge, the SEBoK makes
high-quality information available to the systems engineer right away.
• Being composed of articles of 2000 words or less in most cases, the SEBoK enables the systems engineer to
quickly get an overview of relevant topics.
• By providing primary references, each topic offers a direct route to more detailed information.
• Even greater detail, breadth, and a sense of what's relevant in the SE literature are available through the additional
references each topic provides.
• Since the SEBoK sources have been reviewed and vetted by a team of experts, the SEBoK helps the systems
engineer avoid less reliable information which can be hard to eliminate within Internet search results.
• The systems engineer who needs to connect with educators and researchers can find relevant names and
institutions in SEBoK topics and references.
Systems engineers using the SEBoK may choose one or more of several approaches:
• searching on keywords or article names, using the text field, Search [1] button, and Go [2] button at the top right of
each SEBoK page
• scanning the Quick Links, Outline (where the table of contents is located), or Navigation indexes that appear at
the left of each SEBoK page, and following links from there to articles that seem likely to be of interest
• searching on keywords using an Internet search engine
• reading through one or more of Parts 1 through 7 in sequence
Reading the SEBoK in sequence is especially suitable for the practicing engineer who is new to SE or is enrolled in
an SE-related training course. For this engineer, SE (or some aspect of it) is a subject to be learned comprehensively.
This is made easier by navigation links from each article to the previous, next, and parent articles as found in the
Table of Contents.
For practicing systems engineers, having the SEBoK makes it possible to gain knowledge more quickly and reliably
than they would otherwise. The goal is to spend less time searching for and compiling new information from
disparate sources and more time getting work done.
For a team of practicing engineers, the gap in knowledge between more- and less-experienced engineers can be a
major obstacle. The SEBoK serves as a tool for the team to build a framework of agreed-upon definitions and
perspectives. The consistency of such a framework enhances communication across the team. New teams, especially,
can benefit from bridging the gap between legacy and more-recently-acquired knowledge. For more information, see
Enabling Teams in Part 5.
How Systems Engineers Use the Examples

The SEBoK is written, for the most part, independent of any particular domain of practice. By design, parts 1 though
6 focus on the discipline of SE and not the numerous domains where SE can be applied.
This lack of domain-specific content is partly offset by Part 7, Systems Engineering Implementation Examples,
which consists of case studies and examples drawn from a number of domains where SE is applied. Each example
demonstrates the impact of a particular application domain upon SE activities. Examples are generally most useful to
the systems engineer when they are aligned with the domain in which the he or she is working, but sometimes ideas
from an example in one domain can be usefully applied to situations in another.
Example: Model-Based Systems Engineering Practitioners

For practitioners of model-based systems engineering (MBSE), the Representing Systems with Models knowledge
area is of central importance within the SEBoK.
Academic faculty who use the SEBoK to support curriculum development and assessment can refer to the same
knowledge area to ensure that their curricula accurately cover the languages and/or methodologies such as System
Modeling Language (SysML) and Object-Process Methodology (OPM).
SE researchers, too, can adopt an MBSE approach, making their research products more formal and rigorous by
basing them on models.
In MBSE, models of systems support system life cycle activities, including requirements engineering, high-level
architecture, detailed design, testing, usage, maintenance, and disposal.
Vignette: Systems Engineering for Medical Devices

Tara Washington has worked as a engineer for the HealthTech medical device company for seven years. Besides
continuing to improve her strong software skills, she has shown an aptitude for systems thinking. To better
understand the products that her software supports, Tara has taken courses in electrical engineering, mechanical
engineering, and physiology. The coursework has helped her to perform effectively as a software system analyst on
the SE teams of her last two projects.
HealthTech’s Research Division proposes a new concept for a highly programmable radiation therapy device that
monitors the effects of the radiation on various parts of the body and adjusts the parameters of the radiation dosage
to maximize its effectiveness, subject to a number of safety constraints. The software-intensiveness of the device
leads Tara’s project manager to recommend her as the lead systems engineer for the design and development of the
product.
Tara welcomes the opportunity, knowing that she possesses enough domain knowledge to take the lead SE role.
Even so, she realizes that she has picked up SE skills mainly by intuition and needs to build them up more
systematically. Tara begins to consult some of HealthTech’s lead systems engineers, and to study the SEBoK.
After reading the SEBoK Introduction, Tara feels that she has a solid overview of the SEBoK. Tara finds that the
next topic, Scope and Context of the SEBoK, outlines the key activities that she expects to lead, along with others
which will require her to collaborate with systems developers and project and systems management personnel.
The same topic identifies those parts of the SEBoK that Tara needs to study in preparation for her lead systems
engineer role:
• SE concepts, principles, and modeling approaches in Part 2 (Representing Systems with Models knowledge area
(KA))
• life cycle processes, management, technical practices, in Part 3 (Systems Engineering and Management KA)
• approaches for specifying, architecting, verifying and validating the hardware, software, and human factors
aspects of the product, as well as common pitfalls to avoid and risks to manage, also in Systems Engineering and
Management
• guidelines for the systems engineering of products, in Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering, including
references
• SE knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes (KSAAs) needed for a project in Part 5: Enabling Systems
Engineering including references
• specialty engineering disciplines that may be key to the project’s success, in Part 6: Related Disciplines
Tara's awareness of the deaths caused by the Therac-25 radiation therapy device motivates her to study not only the
System Safety topic in Part 6, but all of its key references as well.
While reading about SE life cycle process models in Systems Engineering and Management in Part 3, Tara notes the
reference to the Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump Case Study in Part 7. This case study strikes Tara as highly
relevant to her medical-device work, and she observes that it is organized into phases similar to those used at
HealthTech. From the case study, Tara gains understanding of how a project such as hers would progress: by
concurrently evaluating technology opportunities, by discovering the needs of various device stakeholders such as
patients, nurses, doctors, hospital administrators, and regulatory agencies, and by working through increasingly
detailed prototypes, specifications, designs, plans, business cases, and product safety analyses.
The case study mentions its source: Human-System Integration in the System Development Process [3] (Pew and
Mavor 2007), published by the U.S. National Research Council. Tara obtains this book. In it, she finds numerous
good practices for human-systems needs analysis, organizational analysis, operations analysis, prototyping, usability
criteria formulation, hardware-software-human factors integration, process decision milestone review criteria, and
risk management.
As a result of her SEBoK-based study, Tara feels better-qualified to plan, staff, organize, control, and direct the SE
portion of the HealthTech radiation therapy device project and to help bring the project to a successful conclusion.
How Systems Engineers Use the Emerging Knowledge

The SE discipline continues to mature and evolve, incorporating new ideas, processes, and technologies. The SEBoK
part on Emerging Knowledge describes some of these trends. For example, it currently includes references to the
incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) to support systems engineering.
Summary
In the SEBoK, practicing engineers have an authoritative knowledge resource that can be accessed quickly to gain
essential high-level information, and to identify the best references for in-depth study and research into SE topics
when an individual’s initial level of understanding is not adequate to get the job done.
The SEBoK is also a resource for practicing engineers who teach, as well as those taking training courses.
References
Works Cited
Pew, R. and A. Mavor. 2007. Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look.
Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press.
Primary References
None.
None.

References
[1] http:/ / www. mediawiki. org/ wiki/ Help:Searching
[2] http:/ / meta. wikimedia. org/ wiki/ Help:Go_button
[3] http:/ / www. nap. edu/ catalog. php?record_id=11893
Guidance for Engineers

The realization of successful complex systems requires experts from many disciplines to work together. This makes
the SEBoK useful to engineers with backgrounds in biomedical, civil, electrical, chemical, civil, materials,
mechanical, software, and many other engineering disciplines.
Studying the SEBoK enables engineers from disciplines other than systems engineering (SE) to:
• see why good systems engineering practice must involve multiple disciplines,
• appreciate a broader view of systems beyond their specialties,
• understand how their contributions fit into the larger systems picture, and
• prepare to solve more difficult and encompassing problems.
In many cases, engineers who study systems engineering as a supplement to their area of specialization find their
professional value enhanced when they put the new knowledge into practice.
Use of Topics
For engineers from non-SE backgrounds, each part of the SEBoK contributes something to the experience of
learning about systems engineering.
• Part 1: SEBoK Introduction provides an overview both of systems engineering and of the SEBoK itself
• Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering highlights the areas of systems knowledge most relevant to systems
engineering, providing a foundation for the theory and practice of systems engineering as explained in Parts 3, 4
and 5
• Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management includes the knowledge areas of Life Cycle Models, System
Definition, System Realization, and System Deployment and Use, all highly important when approaching the
study of SE from another discipline
• Also in Part 3, Systems Engineering Management includes such relevant topics as risk management,
measurement, configuration management, and quality management
• Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering identifies the SE activities for four kinds of engineered systems,
namely products, services, enterprises, and systems of systems (SoS)
• The primary references and glossary terms — not just the content — for a given type of system are essential
reading for an engineer developing or modifying a system of that kind
• Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering, especially Team Capability, explains how systems engineers and other
types of engineers fit into the larger picture of enabling individuals and teams to perform systems engineering
activities, and into the larger picture of systems engineering organizational strategies
• Part 6: Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines is key for engineers from non-SE backgrounds
• Within Part 6, Systems Engineering and Project Management should be of interest to almost all readers, while
Systems Engineering and Software Engineering and Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes are naturally
most essential for engineers in the respective disciplines
• Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples illustrates how systems engineering practices, principles,
and concepts are applied in real settings and contain universally useful insights
Engineers may be tempted to skip over knowledge areas or topics that sound more like management than
engineering stories, for example Systems Engineering Management in Part 3 or Part 5. This temptation should be
resisted, because these topics are actually about how SE orchestrates the efforts of multiple disciplines, not
management in the administrative sense.
Finally, the extensive lists of references throughout the SEBoK provide a basis for further readings.
Vignette: Software Engineer

José Wilks is an entrepreneurial software engineer who wants to learn more about systems engineering principles
applied to embedded systems for advanced document identification and verification. He wants to implement best
practices in developing highly secure systems for real-time image processing and forensic verification of documents.
His company provides a rapid, secure and cost-effective solution for verifying the authenticity of identification,
travel, and financial documents, with technology that runs on proprietary tablet computers for portable and fixed
locations.
José is knowledgeable about computer hardware engineering, low-level interfaces between hardware and software,
and the related tradeoffs in embedded devices. His company has developed research prototypes, but without the
stringent security requirements for actual field usage linked to government identification databases. The few
experimental units which have been sold have fared well in limited testing, but José wants to expand into markets for
government agencies, law enforcement departments and the private sector. To make headway into those diverse
markets, he will need to confront abundant new constraints and challenges.
José begins his study of SE by skimming the SEBoK Introduction and the Scope and Context of the SEBoK to get an
overview of the SEBoK contents. As he reads, he sometimes refers to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge
(SWEBoK) (Bourque and Fairley 2014), which José already knows from his many years of experience on software
projects. In the SEBoK, José is looking for nuggets of knowledge and pointers that can help his enterprise expand.
Here are his notes:
• Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management has concepts that are new to us and that may work. Extra
system-level verification and validation (V&V) gates identified in Life Cycle Models can be incorporated in
company processes, and the references can help with implementation details. There is also material about
system-wide procedures beyond software V&V, and about where to find testing and regulation standards used by
various government entities. Together with the traditional software testing already in place, these processes could
ensure conformity to the regulations and expedite the product's approval for use.
• Though the system concept is proven, the company must still convince potential buyers of the system's financial
benefits while demonstrating that all security criteria are satisfied. To do that, we must better understand the
needs of the stakeholders. In expressing system requirements and benefits, we need to start using the terminology
of users, corporate/government purchasers, and regulatory agencies. Stakeholder Needs and Requirements is
relevant here. The company needs to quantify expected return on investment (ROI) for its products.
• System Realization addresses our broader V&V concerns. We need to demonstrate the measures we are taking to
boost reliability of system performance. The standard models and measures for system reliability described in the
SEBoK are new to us — now staff must develop tests to quantify important attributes. We may want to model
reliability and system adherence to regulations using a form of model-based systems engineering (MBSE). We
can learn more about this from the references.
• Systems Engineering Management makes it clear that new configuration management (CM) and information
management (IM) procedures need to be adopted for federal database controls and integrity. We can use the
references in Systems Engineering Standards to learn how to define processes and develop test cases.
• Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering makes a convincing case that having the right people for a new systems
engineering culture is critical. We should probably hire a systems engineer or two to augment our engineering
department expertise.
• Our application must deal with private data concerns, and Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples,
particularly the FBI Virtual Case File System Case Study, could help us avoid pitfalls that have hurt others in
similar situations. We can put this in context based on Security Engineering in Part 6: Related Disciplines, and
then follow up with further study based on the references.
Now José feels that he is better prepared to adapt his processes for new system lifecycles and environments, and that
he can see a clear path through the morass of agencies and regulations. His priorities are to quantify the value
proposition for his technology innovations, make inroads into new markets, and strengthen his staff for the long-term
enterprise.
Vignette: Mechanical Engineer

Cindy Glass is a mechanical engineer whose experience in the petroleum industry has focused on large-scale oil
extraction equipment in the field. Now Cindy is tasked with helping to manage the development of new offshore oil
platforms featuring robotic technology and computer networks. This calls for incorporating SE principles from day
one to cope with the systems considerations, which are broader than anything in Cindy's previous experience.
Some of the drilling is to be done with remote-controlled, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs). Along with
safety, which was always a major concern, cybersecurity now takes center stage. Hostile state actors, “hacktivists,” or
others could cause havoc if they succeed in taking control of the remote vehicles or other infrastructure.
Unfortunately, software system implementation is completely new to Cindy, who realizes that this entails dealing
with many more engineering disciplines and dimensions of system constraints than she previously encountered.
Cindy is accustomed to implementing minor design changes in existing equipment, with automation and safety
guidelines already in place. Now she is starting from scratch with the earliest stages of the platform lifecycle. While
Cindy understands tradeoffs involving mechanical sub-systems like rigs and drilling materials, she must now
broaden her system analysis to include new environmental constraints and system security.
Cindy consults the SEBoK and discovers that for her effort to understand system design with many "-ilities," System
Realization is a good starting point and its references should provide the in-depth information she needs.
The project lifecycle requires pursuing several major activities concurrently:
• engineering platform sub-components
• evaluating technology opportunities
• understanding the needs of all stakeholders inside and outside the company
• progressing through increasingly detailed prototypes, working slices of software, system specifications, designs,
plans, business cases, and security and safety analyses of the platform architecture and its operations.
To understand how to manage such a project lifecycle, Cindy turns to Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management.
The planning section provides detailed advice for starting out. Cindy expects to conduct her management activities
on a rigorous basis, to consider the interfaces between the engineering specialties, and to produce a project plan that
calls for a broad set of integrated management and technical plans.
Being new to the software development world, Cindy reads The Nature of Software and Key Points a Systems
Engineer Needs to Know about Software Engineering, and consults the SWEBoK [1] for references on software
engineering.
These readings show Cindy how closely systems engineering and software engineering are intertwined. For example,
they remind her to include security specialists at both the software level and the systems level from the beginning.
From her initial plunge into study of the SEBoK, Cindy has gained an appreciation of the wide range of system
constraints for which she must account, and the many engineering disciplines she must work with as a result. She
plans to consult the references in the SEBoK on each unfamiliar subject that she encounters throughout the
architecting, design, development and deployment of the new platforms.
Summary
Engineers from disciplines other than systems engineering benefit from the insights about SE principles that the
SEBoK provides. Studying the knowledge areas highlighted in this use case and the sources to which their references
point can help such engineers become more interdisciplinary. Ultimately, they can consider broadening their work
responsibilities, rendering them more valuable to their employers and society.
References
Works Cited
Bourque, P. and R.E. Fairley. Eds. 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK). Los
Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Available at: http://www.swebok.org
Primary References
None.
None.

References
[1] http:/ / www. computer. org/ portal/ web/ swebok
Guidance for Systems Engineering Customers

Customers of systems engineering (SE) provide resources to SE organizations and individuals, and receive SE
products and services in return. They are among the stakeholders for a system-of-interest (SoI). They and other
stakeholders express needs and expectations for results that systems engineers provide.
Although their main SE activity is helping to define the system, customers must take account of all life cycle aspects.
The better they understand the activities that systems engineers perform, the better customers know what to request,
how to request it, how much to pay for it, and how to judge the quality and value of the results of systems
engineering. In short, what customers need to grasp is how systems engineers participate in the realization of
engineered systems resulting in products, services, enterprises, and systems of systems (SoS).
The SEBoK assists the customers of systems engineering by providing a broad, comprehensive treatment of the
concepts, principles, theory, and practice related to systems in general and SE in particular. Its references inform
customers about books and articles that provide important perspectives on systems and SE.
Customers of SE include:
• sponsors of internal SE organizations,
• organizations that maintain long-term customer-domain relationships with external SE organizations, and
• organizations that outsource SE functions to general-purpose SE organizations.
The two vignettes below show how the SEBoK can assist SE customers. In one, the customer of an internal,
corporate SE organization leads the transition to a mobile supply chain management system. In the other, the
customer of a mixture of customer-domain and other SE organizations presides over the SE of a
catastrophe-response SoS, which entails integration over multiple domains.
Use of Topics
For customers of SE, most parts of the SEBoK offer immediately relevant knowledge about SE.
Part 1: SEBoK Introduction:
• explains the relationship between SE, system development, and project management,
• summarizes overall trends in the rate of growth of systems interdependency, complexity, assurance levels, and
pace of change, and of the evolving nature of integrated hardware-software-human systems, and
• provides pointers to other parts of the SEBoK of interest to customers.
Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management:
• explains evolving system life cycle models and their elements, indicating which elements are SE-intensive (see
Life Cycle Models),
• provides overall perspectives on customer participation in SE activity,
• identifies customer influence points on SE activity, and
• explains how customers can express their concerns in the form of needs, expectations, and requirements (see
System Definition).
Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering:
• explains how the SE function varies by class of system product, service, enterprise, and systems of systems
engineering).
Part 6: Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines:
• explains how SE relates to project management, procurement and acquisition, and specialty engineering for such
customer-intensive specialties as safety, security, maintainability, usability, and affordability.
Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples:
• provides case studies and examples to illustrate how the parts have been used in similar situations, presenting
successes to emulate and failures to avoid.
If there is a central theme here, it is that the quality of customer input is critical. That is because the systems engineer
evaluates customer input, then uses it in formulating an approach to defining and realizing the system. Part 3
addresses this, explaining that the customer should expect the systems engineer to provide:
• a well-architected product, service, enterprise, or system of systems that meets customer needs and expectations
(again, this depends on high quality input from stakeholders — see System Definition)
• a managed life cycle model from the customer need and requirements to the delivered product, service, enterprise
or system of systems (see Life Cycle Models)
• both verification that the system-of-interest (SoI) meets the needs and requirements of the stakeholders, and
validation that the final result, when deployed in an operational environment, provides the value added that was
desired are critical to systems engineering (see System Realization and System Deployment and Use).
Implementation Examples
Good examples provide a basis for deeper understanding. In Part 7, the SEBoK provides summaries of and
references to full case studies and examples. These are linked back to the appropriate areas of the SEBoK and a
matrix is provided that shows the primary areas of the SEBoK addressed by each example. Readers can use the
matrix to find case studies and examples- and through these, references - that relate to their concerns.
Vignette: Mobile Supply Chain Management

Barbara Bradley is the Director of Supply Chain Management Systems for a large manufacturing company. Her
main area of expertise is transportation logistics. She has led the evolution of a highly successful corporate supply
chain management system based on desktop and mainframe technology, more by making incremental strategic
choices than by applying formal SE.
Now, many of her suppliers and distributors adopt mobile devices and cloud services and Barbara sees that her own
company must do the same. The company's status quo approach of incremental, ad hoc choices is clearly inadequate
for a technology transition of this magnitude. Not only that, but the company must evolve to the new mode of
operation while providing continuity of service to the supply chain stakeholders.
Barbara decides that these challenges require formal SE. As a first step, she plans to put together a Next-Generation
Supply Chain Management System integrated product team (IPT). Members of the IPT will include Barbara's supply
chain experts, her supply-chain success-critical stakeholders, and the corporate SE organization.
Barbara has never used the corporate SE organization before and wants to better understand an SE organization’s
overall capabilities and modes of operation. She turns to the SEBoK for answers to the questions about SE that are
on her mind:
• How do we maintain continuity of service while pursuing incremental development?
• What choices about life cycle models can make this possible?
• What is the role of the customer in defining systems of interest (SoIs)?
• How do we provide guidance to the customer in expressing needs, concerns, and requirements?
• What is the role of the customer at early decision milestones?
• How do we ensure that results of our interaction with the customer include well-architected products and
thorough development plans, budgets, and schedules?
• What is the role of the customer in product acceptance, specifically when we verify stakeholder requirements and
when we validate the final result?
Barbara seeks the answer to one question in Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering:
• Given that a supply chain management system combines product, service, enterprise, and SoS views, how do we
understand what goes into all those views, and keep the overall picture clear?
Barbara's final question is addressed in Part 6: Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines:
• How do we integrate SE and software engineering (SwE)?
Once in command of the answers to these questions, Barbara is ready to lead the IPT in analyzing, negotiating, and
defining an approach that is satisfactory to all of the success-critical stakeholders. By having the IPT members read
the portions of the SEBoK that she has found most valuable, Barbara begins to build a shared vision within the IPT.
As the IPT defines a Next-Generation Supply Chain Management System and prepares the transition from the old
system to the new, the SEBoK is an important tool and resource.
Vignette: Catastrophe-Response System of Systems

Ahmed Malik is the Information Systems Division General Manager in his country’s Department of Natural
Resources. The country suffers frequent wildfires that destroy crops, forests, villages, and parts of cities, and also
cause problems with emergency care, crime prevention, and the water supply.
During a recent catastrophic wildfire, personnel responsible for firefighting, crime prevention, traffic control, water
supply maintenance, emergency care facilities, and other key capabilities found themselves unable to communicate
with each other. As a result, the Minister for Natural Resources has been tasked with improving the country’s
catastrophe response capabilities, and has named Ahmed as the SE customer lead for this effort.
The Minister suggests that Ahmed organize a workshop to scope the problem and explore candidate solutions to the
communications problems. Ahmed invites the various actors involved in catastrophe response — medical, insurance,
and news media organizations from both public and private sectors. He also invites SE organizations with SoS
experience.
Ahmed has strong experience in information SE, but none in the development of SoSs. To come up to speed in his
role as the SE customer lead, Ahmed turns to the SEBoK Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management. To better
understand the challenges of SoS SE, he studies the SoS knowledge area in Part 4, and its references. Ahmed also
schedules meetings with the leading SoS SE provider organizations, who are eager to tell him about their
capabilities. Overall, Ahmed looks for both guidance and pointers to candidate solution sources in the SEBoK.
Thus prepared, Ahmed structures the workshop to address three key challenges:
• mutual understanding of organization roles, responsibilities, and authority
• summary analyses of previous catastrophe response communication gaps and needs
• candidate solution capabilities in communications, data access, geolocation services, public emergency warning
systems, coordinating evacuation procedures, architectural connector approaches for improving interoperability,
and sharable models for evaluating alternative solution approaches.
The workshop brings the primary organizations involved in catastrophe responses together with the most capable
SoS SE provider organizations. The results of their discussions provide Ahmed and his Minister with sufficient
information to prepare a phased plan, budget, and schedule for incremental development of improved catastrophe
response capabilities, beginning with simple interoperability aids and analyses of architecture alternatives for
performance, scalability, and feasibility of evolution from the initial simple fixes. The plan is then iterated with the
key stakeholders and converged to a common-consensus approach for achieving strong, credible early improvements
and a way forward to a much more scalable and cost-effective catastrophe-response SoS.
This vignette is based on the Regional Area Crisis Response SoS (RACRS) in (Lane and Bohn 2010).
Summary
For the customers of SE, the SEBoK provides both general and specific knowledge that will help users gain
important insight in relating to systems engineers. Key to this is learning about life cycles, the definition of SoIs, and
how to provide guidance in expressing needs, concerns, and requirements. Further, customers need to know what to
expect as a result of SE activities in the form of well-architected products, services, enterprises, or systems of
systems and a managed life cycle. The results of verification of stakeholder requirements and the validation of the
final result in respect to fulfilling the user needs are vital.
References
Works Cited
Lane, J. and T. Bohn. 2010. Using SySML to Evolve Systems of Systems. Los Angeles, CA, USA: USC CSSE
Technical Report. USC-CSSE-2010-506.
Primary References
Jamshidi, M. Ed. 2009. Systems of Systems Engineering - Principles and Applications. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Press.
Sage, A., and Rouse, W. Eds. 1999. Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
U.S. Department of Defense. 2008. Systems Engineering Guide for System of Systems, version 1.0. Arlington, VA,
USA: U.S. Department of Defense. Available at: http:/ / www. acq. osd. mil/ se/ docs/ SE-Guide-for-SoS. pdf.
Accessed April 18, 2013.
P. Bourque and R.E. Fairley Eds. 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge, Version 3.0. Los
Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Available at http://www.swebok.org.

Guidance for Educators and Researchers

For educators or researchers, the SEBoK should be used together with GRCSE (Graduate Reference Curriculum for
System Engineering). The SEBoK is a guide to the knowledge that constitutes the systems engineering domain,
while GRCSE [1] “describes a program for a professional master’s degree focused on developing student ability to
perform systems engineering tasks and roles” (Pyster et al. 2012).
An educator, for purposes of this use case, is a university faculty member or a professional trainer. Educators use the
SEBoK and the GRCSE to develop curricula or courses focused on systems engineering (SE) generally, on
domain-centric systems engineering, or on another engineering discipline that touches on SE. The SEBoK and
GRCSE are means to assure accuracy, completeness, and effective assessment at all levels, from lessons through
objectives.
A researcher, for purposes of this use case, is a person actively contributing to the body of SE knowledge.
The Use of Topics

Educators can use SEBOK topics and their primary and additional references as:
• assigned readings for courses,
• supplemental references for student research, and
• content for curriculum development.
Educators can also use the concepts, perspectives, and references to develop or refine course objectives and the
techniques for assessing them.
Researchers can use SEBoK topics and their primary and additional references to learn about the state of the art in
the subject areas of interest, for summaries of the literature, and to look for opportunities to advance those areas by
further research.
A good course or research topic should reflect multiple perspectives, which the SEBoK provides. As well, cataloging
the wide diversity in accepted practices across SE is an important function of the SEBoK from the researcher's
perspective.
For both educators and researchers, the fact that the SEBoK provides both primary and additional references in each
topic is useful. So is the fact that the SEBoK is a wiki, which allows frequent updates to keep pace with the dynamic
evolution of the systems engineering domain. See Acknowledgements and Release History.
Good examples make for good teaching. The Systems Engineering Implementation Examples in the SEBoK consist
of relatively in-depth case studies and shorter examples, which are linked back to appropriate areas of the SEBoK. A
matrix shows which SEBoK topics are addressed by each case study or vignette.
Each case study in the SEBoK is actually a summary of an original case found in the SE literature, and is
accompanied by a reference to the full, published case study. Case study summaries or examples from the SEBoK
may be incorporated in curricula.
Educator
University faculty may use the SEBoK and GRCSE to develop:
• a complete SE curriculum,
• a single course in systems engineering, either for use in an SE curriculum, or in a curriculum that belongs to some
other discipline, or
• assessment criteria for curricula or courses.
Likewise, professional trainers use the SEBoK to develop training material, or to evaluate or update existing training
courses.
Both faculty and trainers pursue professional development, in the form of SE study, using the SEBoK.
Vignette: Curriculum and Course Development

A university designates a faculty team to investigate the feasibility of developing a graduate degree in SE.
Results of preliminary feasibility analysis (including evaluating the market, competing degree programs, and so on)
are encouraging. The faculty team then begins to design the program, by identifying:
• program constituents
• potential objectives, outcomes and entrance requirements, based on review of GRCSE
• one half of the curriculum content based on review of the typical curriculum architecture (GRCSE chapter 5) and
the core body of knowledge (CorBoK) (chapter 6) of GRCSE and
• the other half of the curriculum content based on review of the SEBoK (Parts 2 through 7) .
According to the GRCSE, 50% of the total knowledge conveyed in a graduate program should be based on the
CorBoK, to ensure a common foundation among programs offered at different institutions. At the same time,
restricting the CorBoK to no more than 50% encourages a healthy variety in those programs.
Once these steps are complete, the overall architecture and the content and scope of the curriculum are defined. Now
the faculty designs the courses themselves, defining in turn:
• the prerequisites for each course
• the overall course sequencing for the curriculum, based on the course prerequisites
• the objectives and goals for each course and
• the expected outcomes of each course.
Finally, the faculty is ready to develop the content for each individual course.
Defining course content is done based on topics in the SEBoK that cover the subject of the course.
Using primary and additional references as much as the topics themselves, the faculty responsible for course design
define:
• the scope of the course content
• the course coverage, that is, what within the course content scope is actually taught in the course.
Given the scope and coverage, the next and final step is to develop the course material.
A professional trainer designing the training material performs the same kinds of activities. To customize the training
course for a specific industry or customer, the trainer may integrate domain-specific content as well.
Researcher
Researchers use SEBoK topics and their primary and additional references to learn about the state of the art in the
subject areas of topics, and to look for opportunities to advance those areas by further research.
Vignette: Software Engineering Research

William McGregor, a software engineer, wants to learn more about software intensive systems (SIS). Initially,
William wants to answer the question: Do the activities and practices used to develop SIS represent special
treatments of standard activities and practices?
William has already reviewed the SWEBoK and its primary references extensively for an answer to his question. In
the course of his research, William learns about the SEBoK and decides to look there, too.
William finds no specific discussion of the SIS within the SEBoK. As he looks through the SEBoK, though, he
realizes that there are activities throughout the system development life cycle which can be adapted or customized
for the development of SIS. Accordingly, William decides to replace his original question with two new ones: (a)
what best practices are applied throughout the software development life cycle and (b) how can those practices be
adapted to SIS?
William now focuses on Part 3 to learn about the system development life cycle and identify development activities
and practices that he can customize for software intensive systems.
Summary
Educators use the SEBoK as a framework or a resource which helps them:
• determine what subject matter should be included in a new curriculum
• identify gaps in an existing curriculum and craft plans to address those gaps, and
• design individual courses.
The case studies and vignettes in the SEBoK may be used by educators in the classroom.
To develop curricula at the program level, educators should use the SEBoK in tandem with the GRCSE.
Researchers use the SEBoK to learn about the state of the systems engineering discipline, and to look for
opportunities to advance that state by further research.
References
Works Cited
Bloom, B.S., M.D. Engelhart, E.J. Furst, W.H. Hill, and D.R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London, UK: Longman Group
Ltd.
Primary References
Pyster, A., D.H. Olwell, T.L.J. Ferris, N. Hutchison, S. Enck, J.F. Anthony, D. Henry, and A. Squires. Eds. 2015.
Graduate Reference Curriculum for Systems Engineering (GRCSE™), version 1.1. Hoboken, NJ, USA: The
Trustees of the Stevens Institute of Technology ©2015. Available at: http://www.bkcase.org/grcse-2/.
None.

References
[1] http:/ / www. grcse. org
Guidance for General Managers

General managers preside over system development projects, system acquisitions, product lines, systems of systems
(SoSs), and commercial and government organizations. For general managers, the SEBoK serves as a primary
information source and quick, comprehensive reference for systems engineering information.
In particular, the SEBoK helps the general manager understand:
• the boundaries and synergies among systems engineering (SE), systems development, project management (PM),
and life cycle support
• how those boundaries and synergies are likely to evolve with increasing use of evolutionary development, lean
and agile methods, and systems that provide purchased services as opposed to salable products
• how to best balance a mix of hardware, software, human factors, domain, and specialty-area systems engineers
and
• how an organization can evolve to take advantage of the trend towards cross-discipline systems engineers.
Use of Topics
For general managers, most parts of the SEBoK offer immediately relevant knowledge about SE.
Part 1:
• explains the relationship between SE, system development, and project management
• summarizes overall trends in the nature of systems interdependency, complexity, assurance levels, and pace of
change
• describes the evolving nature of integrated hardware-software-human systems and
• provides pointers to other parts of the SEBoK of interest to general managers.
Part 3:
• explains evolving system life cycle models and their elements, indicating which elements are SE-intensive (see
Life Cycle Models) and
• provides overall guidance on the management of SE activity.
Part 4:
• explains how the SE function varies by class of system product, service, enterprise, and systems of systems
engineering).
Part 5:
• explains SE governance and competence development.
Part 6:
• explains how SE relates to software engineering, project management, industrial engineering, procurement and
acquisition, and specialty engineering for such specialties as safety, security, maintainability, and usability.
Part 7:
• provides case studies and vignettes to illustrate how the parts have been used in similar situations in successes to
emulate and failures to avoid.
Vignette: Emerging Nation Satellite System

Tom Lee is General Manager for Telecommunications in a ministry of a large emerging nation. The government
does not have much existing capability for developing capital-intensive infrastructure projects. The government
decides to use a major investment in technology as a vehicle to develop national enterprise capabilities.
To accomplish this, the minister assigns Tom to lead a project to develop a national satellite system for
telecommunications and earth resources observation. Tom understands that this is a very complex system and
decides to do some background research. During this research, Tom discovers the SEBoK and decides that is may be
a useful resource.
Tom first reads:
• Part 1 for an overview and pointers to relevant sections of Parts 3 through 6,
• portions of Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6 to learn about the life cycle, nature, scope, and management aspects of
enterprise SE,
• the successful satellite system case studies in Part 7 (Global Positioning System, Miniature Seeker Technology
Integration spacecraft) for approaches to emulate, and
• the satellite system case study in Part 7 which describes development and integration problems (Hubble Space
Telescope) for pitfalls to avoid.
Tom continues by carefully reading Part 5. He realizes that he must simultaneously develop individuals, teams, and
the enterprise. The knowledge areas (KAs) from Part 5 give useful background. For this project, Tom enlists both a
proven multi-national satellite SE company and some of his brightest aerospace systems engineers. Tom expects his
local systems engineers to learn from the SE company, and he plans to use them as the core group of the national
satellite system as it ultimately develops and operates.
He realizes that correct problem definition and requirements setting will be critical first steps. He carefully reads the
Concept Definition and System Definition KAs. As his team develops the Stakeholder Needs and Requirements and
the System Requirements, he makes sure they follow good practices as listed in the SEBoK. Once architectural
designs have been proposed and approved, he requires his team to perform cost-benefit tradeoff analyses of
alternative solutions.
Thus prepared, Tom is confident that he can formulate and execute a successful approach.
Vignette: Commercial Safety Equipment Company

Maria Moreno is General Manager at Safety First Equipment Company, specialists in hardware-intensive safety
equipment. Maria’s background is in electromechanical systems. Safety First is highly successful but beginning to
lose market share to competitors who offer software-intensive capabilities and user amenities.
Maria is preparing an initiative to make Safety First into a leading software-intensive safety equipment provider. She
decides to make the SEBoK a primary resource for gathering concepts and insights for the initiative. She begins by
skimming through all of Parts 1 through 6, both to become familiar with the SEBoK itself and to start organizing her
thoughts on SE.
Now Maria is ready to focus on subjects of prime importance to her task. Here are those subjects, listed with the
places in the SEBoK where she finds information about them.
In Systems Engineering and Software Engineering in Part 6:
• the nature of software,
• differences between hardware and software architectures and practices and
• key aspects of managing software teams.

In the article Human Systems Integration in the Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes knowledge area, also in
Part 6:
• the SE of user amenities.
In the Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump Case Study in Part 7:
• the software aspects of safety practices, such as software fault tree analysis and failure modes and effects analysis
and
• overall approaches for concurrent engineering of the hardware, software, and human factors aspects of
safety-critical equipment.
In the Medical Radiation Case Study in Part 7:
• hardware-software pitfalls to avoid in safety-critical equipment.
Maria chose the last two items from among the case studies in Part 7 because being safety-critical, they contain
lessons directly applicable to her initiative at Safety First.
With this framework of concepts and practical information in place, Maria begins assembling a core team of Safety
First systems engineers, complemented by external experts in software and human factors engineering. Maria wants
the team to begin by developing a shared vision. To that end, she asks them to read the portions of the SEBoK that
she has found most valuable in assessing the challenges of transitioning Safety First into a leading
software-intensive, user-friendly safety equipment provider.
Summary
For the general manager whose organization includes systems engineers, the relationship between SE, systems
development, project management, and life cycle support is a central concern. The SEBoK provides insights and
guidance about this and other aspects of SE principle and practice, and explains the role of SE in a variety of
management challenge areas and application domains.
The SEBoK complements the general management guidance available in sources such as the PMBOK® Guide (PMI
2013).
References
Works Cited
Primary References
P. Bourque and R.E. Fairley. Eds. 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge, Version 3.0. Los
Hooks, I.F. and K. Farry. 2000. Customer Centered Products: Creating Successful Products Through Smart
Requirements Management. New York, NY, USA: AMACON/American Management Association.
< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article (Part 2) >

85
Foundations of Systems Engineering

Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Scott Jackson, Janet Singer, Duane Hybertson, Gary Smith
Part 2 of the Guide to the SE Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) is a guide to foundational knowledge which is relevant
or useful to systems engineering (SE).
Figure 1. SEBoK Part 2 in context (SEBoK Original). For more detail seeStructure of the SEBoK
This knowledge is included in the SEBoK firstly to help systems engineers benefit from an understanding of the
foundations of their discipline, and to provide them with access to some of the theories and practices of systems
science and other fields of systems practice. Including this wider integrative systems science context in the SEBoK
should also help to make SE knowledge more accessible to a wider audience outside of its traditional domains.
Knowledge Areas in Part 2

• Systems Fundamentals
• The Nature of Systems
• Systems Science
• Systems Thinking
• Representing Systems with Models
• Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems
Introduction
Most systems engineers are practitioners, applying processes and methods that have been developed and evolved
over decades. SE is a pragmatic approach, inherently interdisciplinary, yet specialized. Systems engineers usually
work within a specific domain using processes and methods that are tailored to their domain’s unique problems,
constraints, risks and opportunities. These processes and methods have evolved to capture domain experts’
knowledge regarding the best approach to applying SE to the particular domain.
Specific domains in which systems approaches are used and adapted include:
• Technology products, integrating multiple engineering disciplines
• Information-rich systems, e.g. command & control, air traffic management, etc.
• Platforms, e.g. aircraft, civil airliners, cars, trains, etc.
• Organizational and enterprise systems, which may be focused on delivering service or capability
• Civil engineering/infrastructure systems, e.g. roads networks, bridges, builds, communications networks, etc.
The specific skill-sets for each domain, and the kinds and scales of system it considers, may be quite different.
However, there are certain underlying unifying systems principles that can improve the effectiveness of the systems
approach in any domain. In particular, shared knowledge of systems principles and terminology will enable
communication and improve system engineers’ ability to integrate complex systems that span traditional domain
boundaries (Sillitto 2012). This integrated approach is increasingly needed to solve today’s complex system
challenges, but as these different communities come together, they may find that assumptions underpinning their
worldviews are not shared.
General Systems Engineering Foundations

To bridge the gap between different domains and communities of practice, it is important to first establish a
well-grounded definition of the “intellectual foundations of systems engineering,” as well as a common language to
describe the relevant concepts and paradigms. An integrated systems approach for solving complex problems needs
to combine elements of systems theories and systems approaches to practice. This may range from the
technical-systems focus that has been dominant in systems engineering to the learning-systems focus of social
systems intervention. An integrated systems approach needs to provide a framework and language that allow
different communities with highly divergent worldviews and skill sets to work together for a common purpose.
The SEBoK as a whole aims to provide principles and concepts which can be used to support all potential
applications of systems engineering, and which can be easily translated to any particular application by the reader.
Often the published knowledge related to systems engineering has been developed from particular application areas,
typically combinations of applications like defense, transport, or medical, business models such as government,
commercial or voluntary or technology domains such as mechanical, electrical or cyber. In publishing it, authors will
make some effort to specialize it into knowledge which can be applied across related applications.
In the SEBoK, we seek to find or create general descriptions of SE knowledge. A general description should cover
all applications of systems engineering and should include an explanation of the special cases it covers and how it
applied to them. The generalization of knowledge can be informal, providing coverage of the most common
specializations or being the domains current best understanding of the general case. A truly general description must
be based upon stronger theoretical considerations and be in some sense proven to predict and cover all special cases.
Knowledge described in the SEBoK will usually be informally generalized knowledge, with any specific knowledge
being identified as such and related to the general as appropriate.
The INCOSE Vision 2025 includes an aim for systems engineering to be become a discipline with a formally
defined theoretical basis. Such a general theory of SE would be largely included in SEBoK Part 2. The current
SEBoK part 2 does not include such a theory. It provides generalized descriptions of foundational knowledge which
has a pragmatic value to help describe and improve the current and future practice of systems engineering. We would
expect any emerging general theory of systems engineering to draw from and expand these foundations. As such a
theory is defined, it will be included in Part 2 of the SEBoK.
The Systems Praxis Framework

The term “systems praxis” refers to the entire intellectual and practical endeavor for creating holistic solutions to
today’s complex system challenges. Praxis is defined as “translating an idea into action” (Wordnet 2012) and
suggests that the best holistic approach to a given complex challenge may require integrating appropriate theory and
appropriate practice from a wide variety of sources. Systems praxis requires many communities to work together. To
work together we must first communicate; and to communicate, we must first connect.
A framework for unifying systems praxis was developed by members of International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE) and International Society for the System Sciences (ISSS) (International Federation for
Systems Research (IFSR) 2012)) as the first step towards a “common language for systems praxis”. This Systems
Praxis Framework is included here because it represents current thinking on the foundations and common language
of systems engineering, making the concepts and principles of systems thinking and practice accessible to anyone
applying a systems approach to engineered system problems. This framework and thinking have been used to help
organize the guide to systems knowledge in the SEBoK.
The diagram below shows the flows and interconnections among elements of a “knowledge ecosystem” of systems
theory and practice.
Figure 2. The Systems Praxis Framework, Developed as a Joint Project of INCOSE and ISSS. (© 2012 International Federation for
Systems Research) Released under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Source is available at http:/ / systemspraxis. org/
framework. pdf.
In this framework, the following elements are connected:

Systems Thinking is the core integrative element of the framework. It binds the foundations, theories and
representations of systems science together with the hard, soft and pragmatic approaches of systems practice. In
systems praxis, as in any practical discipline underpinned by science, there is constant interplay between theories and
practice, with theory informing practice and outcomes from practice informing theory. Systems thinking is the
ongoing activity of assessing and appreciating the system context, and guiding appropriate adaptation, throughout
the praxis cycle.
Integrative Systems Science has a very wide scope and is grouped into three broad areas:
• Foundations, which help to organize knowledge and promote learning and discovery. This area includes:
meta-theories of methodology, ontology, epistemology, axiology, praxiology (theory of effective action),
teleology, semiotics & semiosis, category theory, etc.
• Theories pertaining to systems are abstracted from domains and specialties, so as to be universally applicable:
general system theory, systems pathology, complexity, anticipatory systems, cybernetics, autopoiesis, living
systems, science of generic design, organization theory, etc.
• Representations and corresponding theories describe, explore, analyze, and make predictions about systems and
their wider contexts, whether in terms of models, dynamics, networks, cellular automata, life cycles, queues,
graphs, rich pictures, narratives, games and dramas, agent-based simulations, etc.
Systems Approaches to Practice aim to act on real world experiences to produce desired outcomes without adverse,
unintended consequences; ergo, practice needs to draw on the wide range of knowledge appropriate to the
system-of-interest and its wider context. No one branch of systems science or practice provides a satisfactory
explanation for all aspects of a typical system “problematique”; therefore, a more pragmatic approach is needed.
Traditional systems approaches are often described to be either hard or soft:
• Hard approaches are suited to solving well-defined problems with reliable data and clear goals, using analytical
methods and quantitative techniques. Strongly influenced by “machine” metaphors, they focus on technical
systems, objective complexity, and optimization to achieve desired combinations of emergent properties. They are
based on “realist” and “functionalist” foundations and worldview.
• Soft approaches are suited to structuring problems involving incomplete data, unclear goals, and open inquiries,
using a “learning system” metaphor, focus on communication, intersubjective complexity, interpretations and
roles, and draw on subjective and “humanist” philosophies with constructivist and interpretivist foundations.
Pragmatic (pluralist or critical) approaches judiciously select an appropriate set of tools and patterns that will give
sufficient and appropriate insights to manage the issue at hand by applying multiple methodologies drawn from
different foundations as appropriate to the situation. Heuristics, boundary critiques, model unfolding, etc, enable the
understanding of assumptions, contexts, and constraints, including complexity due to different stakeholders’ values
and valuations. An appropriate mix of “hard”, “soft”, and custom methods draws on both systems and
domain-specific traditions. Systems may be viewed as networks, societies of agents, organisms, ecosystems,
rhizomes, discourses, machines, etc.
The set of “clouds” that collectively represents systems praxis is part of a wider ecosystem of knowledge, learning,
and action. Successful integration with this wider ecosystem is the key to success with real world systems. Systems
science is augmented by “hard” scientific disciplines, such as physics and neuroscience, and by formal disciplines,
such as mathematics, logic and computation. It is both enhanced by, and used in, humanistic disciplines, such as
psychology, culture, and rhetoric, and pragmatic disciplines, such as accounting, design, and law. Systems practice
depends on measured data and specified metrics relevant to the problem situation and domain, the solicitation of
local values and knowledge, and the pragmatic integration of experience, legacy practices, and discipline knowledge.
In summary, Integrative Systems Science allows us to identify, explore, and understand patterns of complexity
through contributions from the foundations, theories, and representations of systems science and other disciplines
relevant to the “problematique”. Systems Approaches to Practice address complex problems and opportunities
using methods, tools, frameworks, patterns, etc., drawn from the knowledge of integrative systems science, while the
observation of the results of systems practice enhances the body of theory. Systems Thinking binds the two together
through appreciative and reflective practice using systems concepts, principles, patterns, etc.
Scope of Part 2
Part 2 of the SEBoK contains a guide to knowledge about systems, which is relevant to a better understanding of SE.
It does not try to capture all of this systems knowledge here; rather, it provides an overview of a number of key
aspects of systems theory and practice especially relevant to SE.
The organization of knowledge in Part 2 is based around the Praxis Framework discussed above (IFSR 2012). The
need to develop a clear guide to the underpinning knowledge of SE is one of the motivations behind the praxis
framework. It is expected that the coverage of systems knowledge will be significantly increased in future versions
of the SEBoK as this work progresses.
The following diagram summarizes the way in which the knowledge in SEBoK Part 2 is organized.
Figure 3. The Relationships between Key Systems Ideas and SE. (SEBoK Original)
The diagram is divided into five sections, each describing how systems knowledge is treated in the SEBoK.
1. The Systems Fundamentals Knowledge Area considers the question “What is a System?” from the perspective of
System Engineers. It explores System Engineering Concepts, Principles and Heuristics and how these relate to the
process of scientific development. A wide range of system definitions are introduced, including the distinctions
between open systems, closed systems and the types of systems that are engineered. All of these ideas are
particularly relevant to engineered systems and to the groupings of such systems associated with the systems
approach applied to engineered systems (i.e. product system, service system, enterprise system and system of
systems).
2. The Nature of Systems Knowledge Area provides an entry point into the rich landscape of systems (natural and
engineered) in the universe. Across this diversity we give voice and make explicit observed patterns that are
universal to all systems. It is the study of these patterns that form the premise for system science and the
foundations upon which system thinking and system engineering will someday be fully grounded.
3. The Systems Science Knowledge Area presents some influential movements in systems science, including the
chronological development of systems knowledge and underlying theories behind some of the approaches taken
in applying systems science to real problems.
4. The Systems Thinking Knowledge Area describes key concepts, principles and patterns shared across systems
research and practice. Systems thinking is a fundamental paradigm describing a way of looking at the world.
People who think and act in a systems way are essential to the success of both the research and practice of system
disciplines. In particular, individuals who have an awareness of and/or active involvements in both research and
practice of system disciplines are needed to help integrate these closely related activities.
5. The Representing Systems with Models Knowledge Area considers the key role that abstract models play in both
the development of system theories and the application of systems approaches.
6. The Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems Knowledge Area defines a structured approach to
problem/opportunity discovery, exploration, and resolution, that can be applied to all engineered systems. The
approach is based on systems thinking and utilizes appropriate elements of system approaches and
representations. This KA provides principles that map directly to SE practice.
The knowledge presented in this part of the SEBoK has been organized into these areas to facilitate understanding;
the intention is to present a rounded picture of research and practice based on system knowledge. These knowledge
areas should be seen together as a “system of ideas” for connecting research, understanding, and practice, based on
system knowledge which underpins a wide range of scientific, management, and engineering disciplines and applies
to all types of domains.
References
Works Cited
IFSR. 2012. The Systems Praxis Framework, Developed as a Joint Project of INCOSE and ISSS. Vienna, Austria:
International Federation for Systems Research (IFSR). Available at: http://systemspraxis.org/framework.pdf.
Sillitto, H.G., 2012. "Integrating systems science, systems thinking, and systems engineering: Understanding the
differences and exploiting the synergies", Proceedings of the 22nd INCOSE International Symposium, Rome, Italy,
9-12 July, 2012.
Wordnet. 2012. “Praxis.” Accessed 16 April 2013. Available at: http:/ / wordnetweb. princeton. edu/ perl/
webwn?s=praxis&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=.
Primary References
Bertalanffy, L., von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, rev. ed. New York,
NY, USA: Braziller.
Checkland, P. B. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Blanchard, B., and Fabrycky, W. 2010. Systems Engineering and Analysis, (5th edition). Saddle River, NJ, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Lawson, H. 2010. A Journey Through the Systems Landscape. London, UK: College Publications, Kings College,
UK.
Martin J., Bendz J., Chroust G., Hybertson D., Lawson H., Martin R., Sillitto H., Singer J., Singer M., Takaku T.
“Towards a common language for systems praxis”, Proceedings of the 23rd INCOSE International Symposium,
Philadelphia, June 2013.
MITRE Corporation. 2011. Systems Engineering Guide: Comprehensive Viewpoint. Accessed 20 November 2014.
Available at: http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ enterprise_engineering/
comprehensive_viewpoint/.
MITRE Corporation. 2011. Systems Engineering Guide: Systems Thinking. Accessed 20 November 2014. Available
at: http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ enterprise_engineering/ comprehensive_viewpoint/
systems_thinking.html.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY:
Doubleday Business.
< Previous Article (Part 1) | Parent Article | Next Article >

92
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering

Fundamentals
Systems Engineering Fundamentals

Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Janet Singer, Duane Hybertson, Gary Smith
This knowledge area (KA) provides a guide to some of the most important knowledge about system engineering
fundamentals. System Engineering benefits from systems thinking in combination with an essential understanding of
The Nature of Systems. It applies systems approaches to practice grounded in systems science.
This is part of the wider systems knowledge, which can help to provide a common language and intellectual
foundation and make practical systems concepts, principles, patterns and tools accessible to systems engineering
(SE) as discussed in Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering.
Topics
• Introduction to System Fundamentals
• Systems Engineering Principles
• Systems Engineering Heuristics
• Fundamentals for Future Systems Engineering
Introduction
A concept is a mental representation that can be shared with a word or other media such as visualizations, pictures or
displays of emotion (Daniel-Allegro B, Smith G.R. 2016). Systems Engineering Core Concepts provide the mental
building blocks that when brought together can support an expression of principles. “A principle is a fundamental
truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning”. As an
example, if you have three colors, red, blue, yellow (all words that serve as mental concepts). A principle is if you
mix some yellow with some blue then you get green. A principle can provide guidance for acting with some
certainty of the result. Principles learnt from practical experience that yet lack a scientific understanding as to the
explanation of “why” are referred to as heuristics. Often in the progression of science these observations of ‘what is
happening’ form the starting point for asking the question ‘why does this happen’ and prompts research into the
underpinning scientific theory.
The evolution of Systems Engineering Heuristics and associated Systems Engineering Principles is described. The
objective of system science is to provide the theoretical basis for these principles.
The word system is a concept used in many areas of human activity and at many levels. But what do System
Engineers mean when they use the word system? The answer is surprisingly not as simple as you might think.
(Sillitto, Griego et al. 2018) established in their research that there are at least seven distinct, and to a considerable
extent mutually incompatible, worldviews on systems within a relatively small population of systems engineering
experts in the INCOSE Fellows’ and System Science Working Group (SSWG) communities. The worldviews
identified ranged from constructivist (“systems are purely a mental construct”) to “extreme realist” (“systems only
exist in the real world”). Some considered the threshold of systemness” to be as simple as “two or more inter-related
elements”; while others demanded a wide range of attributes, including those of living systems, before considering
something to be a system.
That such a wide range of worldviews was discovered within the Systems Engineering community was a surprising
result. We might expect to find an even wider range of worldviews across a more diverse community; but a
non-rigorous examination of the results of the survey and of the wider literature suggests that the range of “system”
worldviews held by the surveyed group of Systems Engineers is broadly representative of the systems field. In the
2019 IFSR conversation “What is System Science?” (Metcalf, G.S., M.C. Edson, and G. Chroust, 2018), it was
concluded that there would be great benefit to achieve a synthesis across the apparently conflicting worldviews of
constructivism and realism, expressed in terms of these two key aspects: a) the nature of systems in the physical
universe; and b) the way humans perceive and interact with systems.
In practical terms, in the Introduction to Systems Engineering Fundamentals, the concepts of open system and closed
system are explored. Open systems, described by a set of elements and relationships, are used to describe many real
world phenomena. Conceptually closed systems have no interactions with their environment.
Some systems classifications, characterized by type of element or by purpose, are presented.
An engineered system is defined within the SEBoK as encompassing combinations of technology and people in the
context of natural, social, business, public or political environments, created, used and sustained for an identified
purpose. The application of the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems requires the ability to position
problems or opportunities in the wider system containing them, to create or change a specific engineered
system-of-interest, and to understand and deal with the consequences of these changes in appropriate wider systems.
The concept of a system context allows all of the system elements and relationships needed to support this to be
identified.
Two particular aspects of the system phenomena complexity and emergence, are described in the System Science
KA. Between them, these two concepts represent many of the challenges which drive the need for systems thinking
and an appreciation of systems science in SE. In The Nature of Systems KA, a rich portrayal of the landscape of
systems and the system phenomena is provided.
Figure 1. System Fundamentals and Engineered Systems. (SEBoK Original)
The discussions of engineered system contexts includes the general idea of groups of systems to help deal with
situations in which the elements of an engineered system are themselves independent engineered systems. To help
provide a focus for the discussions of how SE is applied to real world problems, four engineered system contexts are
introduced in the KA:
1. product system context
2. service system context
3. enterprise system context
4. system of systems (sos) context
The details of how SE is applied to each of these contexts are described in Part 4: Applications of Systems
Engineering.
References
Works Cited
Daniel-Allegro B, Smith G.R. (2016). Exploring the branches of the system landscape, Les editions Allegro Brigitte
D. ISBN 978-2-9538007-1-5.
Metcalf, G.S., M.C. Edson, and G. Chroust, Systems: from science to practice: Proceedings of the Nineteenth IFSR
Conversation 2018, St. Magdalena, Linz, Austria. 2019: Books on Demand.
Sillitto, H., R. Griego, et al. (2018). What do we mean by “system”?–System Beliefs and Worldviews in the INCOSE
Community. INCOSE International Symposium, Wiley Online Library.
Primary References
NY, USA: Braziller.
Magee, C. L., O.L. de Weck. 2004. "Complex system classification." Proceedings of the 14th Annual International
Council on Systems Engineering International Symposium, Toulouse, France, 20-24 June 2004.
Rebovich, G., and B.E. White (eds.). 2011. Enterprise Systems Engineering: Advances in the Theory and Practice.
Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Sheard, S.A. and A. Mostashari. 2009. "Principles of complex systems for systems engineering." Systems
Engineering, vol. 12, no. 4. pp. 295-311.
Tien, J.M. and D. Berg. 2003. "A case for service systems engineering." Journal of Systems Science and Systems
Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 13-38.
None.


Fundamentals
Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Brian Wells, Scott Jackson, Janet Singer, Duane Hybertson
This article forms part of the Systems Fundamentals knowledge area (KA). It provides various perspectives on
systems, including definitions, scope, and context.
This article provides a guide to some of the basic concepts of systems developed by systems science and discusses
how these relate to the definitions to be found in systems engineering (SE) literature. The concept of an engineered
system is introduced as the system context of critical relevance to SE.
Overview
In the System Fundamentals KA we will define some terms and ideas which are foundational to the understanding
and practice of Systems Engineering (SE). In particular, a number of views of system are explored; these are
summarized below and described in more detail with links to relevant references in the rest of this article.
• A simple definition of System is any set of related parts for which there is sufficient coherence between the
parts to make viewing them as a whole useful. If we consider more complex situations in which the parts of a
system can also be viewed as systems, we can identify useful common systems concepts to aid our understanding.
This allows the creation of systems theories, models and approaches useful to anyone trying to understand, create
or use collections of related things, independent of what the system is made of or the application domain
considering it.
• Many of these common systems ideas relate to complex networks or hierarchies of related system elements. A
System Context is a set of system interrelationships associated with a particular system of interest (SoI)
within a real world environment. One or more views of a context allow us to focus on the SoI but not lose sight
of its broader, holistic relationships and influences. Context can be used for many kinds of system but is
particularly useful for scoping problems and enabling the creation of solutions which combine people and
technology and operate in the natural world. These are referred to as socio-technical system contexts.
• Systems Engineering is one of the disciplines interested in socio-technical systems across their whole life. This
includes where problems come from and how they are defined, how we identify and select candidate solutions,
how to balance technology and human elements in the wider solution context, how to manage the complex
organizational systems needed to develop new solutions, and how developed solutions are used, sustained and
disposed of. To support this, we define an Engineered System as a socio-technical system which is the focus of
a Systems Engineering life cycle.
• While SE is focused on the delivery of an engineered system of interest, an SE should consider the full
Engineered System Context so that the necessary understanding can be reached and the right systems
engineering decisions can be made across each Life Cycle.
A General View of Systems

The idea of a system whole can be found in both Western and Eastern philosophy. Many philosophers have
considered notions of holism, the concept that ideas, people or things must be considered in relation to the things
around them to be fully understood (M’Pherson 1974).
One influential systems science definition of a system comes from general system theory (GST):
A System is a set of elements in interaction. (Bertalanffy 1968)
The parts of a system may be conceptual organizations of ideas in symbolic form or real objects. GST considers
abstract systems to contain only conceptual elements and concrete systems to contain at least two elements that are
real objects, e.g. people, information, software, and physical artifacts, etc.
Similar ideas of wholeness can be found in systems engineering literature. For example:
We believe that the essence of a system is 'togetherness', the drawing together of various parts and the
relationships they form in order to produce a new whole… (Boardman and Sauser 2008).
The cohesive interactions between a set of parts suggest a system boundary and define what membership of the
system means. For closed systems, all aspects of the system exist within this boundary. This idea is useful for
abstract systems and for some theoretical system descriptions.
The boundary of an open systems defines elements and relationships which can be considered part of the system and
describes how these elements interact across the boundary with related elements in the environment. The
relationships among the elements of an open system can be understood as a combination of the systems structure and
behavior. The structure of a system describes a set of system elements and the allowable relationships between them.
System behavior refers to the effects or outcomes produced when an instance of the system interacts with its
environment. An allowable configuration of the relationships among elements is referred to as a system state. A
stable system is one which returns to its original, or another stable, state following a disturbance in the environment.
System wholes entities often exhibit emergence, behavior which is meaningful only when attributed to the whole, not
to its parts (Checkland 1999).
The identification of a system and its boundary is ultimately the choice of the observer. This may be through
observation and classification of sets of elements as systems, through an abstract conceptualization of one or more
possible boundaries and relationships in a given situation, or a mixture of this concrete and conceptual thinking. This
underlines the fact that any particular identification of a system is a human construct used to help make better sense
of a set of things and to share that understanding with others if needed.
Many natural, social and man made things can be better understood by viewing them as open systems. One of the
reasons we find the idea of systems useful is that it is possible to identify shared concepts which apply to many
system views. These recurring concepts or isomorphies can give useful insights into many situations, independently
of the kinds of elements of which a particular system is composed. The ideas of structure, behavior, emergence and
state are examples of such concepts. The identification of these shared system ideas is the basis for systems thinking
and their use in developing theories and approaches in a wide range of fields of study the basis for system sciences.
Systems Engineering (SE), and a number of other related disciplines use systems concepts, patterns and models in
the creation of useful outcomes or things. The concept of a network of open systems created, sustained and used to
achieve a purpose within one or more environments is a powerful model that can be used to understand many
complex real world situations and provide a basis for effective problem solving within them.
System Context
Bertalanffy (1968) divided open systems into nine real world types ranging from static structures and control
mechanisms to socio-cultural systems. Other similar classification systems are discussed in the article Types of
Systems.
The following is a simple classification of system elements which we find at the heart of many of these
classifications:
• Natural system elements, objects or concepts which exist outside of any practical human control. Examples: the
real number system, the solar system, planetary atmosphere circulation systems.
• Social system elements, either abstract human types or social constructs, or concrete individuals or social groups.
• Technological System elements, man-made artifacts or constructs; including physical hardware, software and
information.
While the above distinctions can be made as a general abstract classification, in reality there are no hard and fast
boundaries between these types of systems: e.g., natural systems are operated by, developed by, and often contain
social systems, which depend on technical systems to fully realize their purpose. Systems which contain technical
and either human or natural elements are often called socio-technical systems. The behavior of such systems is
determined both by the nature of the technical elements and by their ability to integrate with or deal with the
variability of the natural and social systems around them.
Many of the original ideas upon which GST and other branches of system study are based come from the study of
systems in the natural and social sciences. Many natural and social systems are initially formed as simple structures
through the inherent cohesion among a set of elements. Once formed, they will tend to stay in this structure, as well
as combine and evolve further into more complex stable states to exploit this cohesion in order to sustain themselves
in the face of threats or environmental pressures. Such complex systems may exhibit specialization of elements, with
elements taking on roles which contribute to the system purpose, but losing some or all of their separate identity
outside the system. Such roles might include management of resources, defense, self-regulation or problem solving,
and control. Natural and social systems can be understood through an understanding of this wholeness, cohesion and
specialization. They can also be guided towards the development of behaviors which not only enhance their basic
survival, but also fulfill other goals of benefit to them or the systems around them. In The Architecture of
Complexity, Simon (1962) has shown that natural or social systems which evolve via a series of stable “hierarchical
intermediate forms” will be more successful and resilient to environmental change.
Thus, it is often true that the environment in which a particular system sits and the elements of that system can
themselves be considered as open systems. It can be useful to consider collections of related elements as both a
system and a part of one or more other systems. For example, a “holon” or system element was defined by Koestler
as something which exists simultaneously as a whole and as a part (Koestler 1967). At some point, the nature of the
relationships between elements within and across boundaries in a hierarchy of systems may lead to complex
structures and emergent behaviors which are difficult to understand or predict. Such complexity can often best be
dealt with not only by looking for more detail, but also by considering the wider open system relationships.
Figure 1: General description of System Context (SEBoK Original)
A system context describes all of the external elements which interact across the boundary of a particular system of
interest (SoI) and a sufficient view of the elements within its boundary, to allow the SoI to be better understood as
part of a wider systems whole. To fully understand the context, we also need to identify the environment in which
the SoI and wider system sit and the systems in the environment which influence them.
Many man-made systems are designed as networks and hierarchies of related system elements to achieve desirable
behaviors and the kinds of the resilience seen in natural systems. While such systems can be deliberately created to
take advantage of system properties such as holism and stability, they must also consider system challenges such as
complexity and emergence. Considering different views of a SoI and its context over its life can help enable this
understanding. Considering systems in context allows us to focus on a SoI while maintaining the necessary wider,
holistic systems perspective. This is one of the foundations of the Systems Approach described in SEBoK part 2,
which forms a foundation of systems engineering.
Systems and Systems Engineering

Some of the systems ideas discussed above form part of the systems engineering body of knowledge. Systems
engineering literature, standards and guides often refer to “the system” to characterize a socio-technical system with a
defined purpose as the focus of SE, e.g.
• “A system is a value-delivering object” (Dori 2002).
• “A system is an array of components designed to accomplish a particular objective according to plan” (Johnson,
Kast, and Rosenzweig 1963).
• “A system is defined as a set of concepts and/or elements used to satisfy a need or requirement" (Miles 1973).
The International Council on Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE 2015) generalizes this idea, defining system
as “an interacting combination of elements to accomplish a defined objective. These include hardware, software,
firmware, people, information, techniques, facilities, services, and other support elements." While these definitions
cover the socio-technical systems created by SE, it is also necessary to consider the natural or social problem
situations in which these systems sit, the social systems which developed, sustained and used them, and the
commercial or public enterprises in which these all sit as systems (Martin 2004).
Hence, while many SE authors talk about systems and systems ideas, they are often based on a particular world view
which related to engineered artifacts. It would also be useful to take a broader view of the context in which these
artifacts sit, and to consider through life relationships as part of that context. To help promote this, the SEBoK will
attempt to be more precise with its use of the word system, and distinguish between general systems principles and
the specific socio-technical systems created by SE.
The term socio-technical system is used by many in the systems community and may have meanings outside of that
relevant to SE. Hence, we will define an engineered system as a socio-technical system which forms the primary
focus or system of interest (SoI) for an application of SE. A SE life cycle will consider an engineered system
context, from initial problem formulation through to final safe removal from use (INCOSE 2015). A more detailed
discussion of engineered system context and how it relates to the foundations of systems engineering practice can be
found below.
Introduction to Engineered Systems

An engineered system defines a context containing both technology and social or natural elements, developed for a
defined purpose by an engineering life cycle.
Engineered system contexts:
• are created, used and sustained to achieve a purpose, goal or mission that is of interest to an enterprise, team, or
an individual.
• require a commitment of resources for development and support.
• are driven by stakeholders with multiple views on the use or creation of the system, or with some other stake in
the system, its properties or existence.
• contain engineered hardware, software, people, services, or a combination of these.
• exist within an environment that impacts the characteristics, use, sustainment and creation of the system.
Engineered systems typically:
• are defined by their purpose, goal or mission.
• have a life cycle and evolution dynamics.
• may include human operators (interacting with the systems via processes) as well as other social and natural
components that must be considered in the design and development of the system.
• are part of a system-of-interest hierarchy.
Open systems are a useful way to understand many complex situations. Traditional engineering disciplines have
become very good at building up detailed models and design practices to deal with the complexity of tightly
integrated collections of elements within a technology domain. It is possible to model the seemingly random
integration of lots of similar elements using statistical approaches. Systems Engineering makes use of both these
aspects of system complexity, as discussed in the Complexity article.
SE also considers the complexity of relatively small numbers of elements taken from a range of design disciplines
together with people who may not always be experienced or have detailed training in their use. Such engineered
systems may be deployed in uncertain or changing environments and be used to help people achieve a number of
loosely defined outcomes. Relatively small changes in the internal working of these engineered systems’ elements, or
in how those elements are combined, may lead to the emergence of complex or un-expected outcomes. It can be
difficult to predict and design for all such outcomes during an engineered system’s creation, or to respond to them
during its use. Iterative life cycle approaches which explore the complexity and emergence over a number of cycles
of development and use are needed to deal with this aspect of complexity. The ways that system engineering deals
with these aspects of complexity in the definition of life cycle and life cycle processes applied to an engineered
system context is fully explored in Part 3
Life Cycle Definitions

As well as being a kind of system, an engineered system is also the focus of a life cycle and hence part of a
commercial transaction. Historically,
Economists divide all economic activity into two broad categories, goods and services.
Goods-producing industries are agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and construction; each of them
creates some kind of tangible object. Service industries include everything else: banking,
communications, wholesale and retail trade, all professional services such as engineering, computer
software development, and medicine, nonprofit economic activity, all consumer services, and all
government services, including defense and administration of justice.... (Encyclopedia Britannica 2011).
The following diagram defines some terms related to an engineered system life cycle and the development of goods
(products) and services.
Figure 2: Life Cycle Terminology (Modified from Capability Engineering – an Analysis of Perspectives (modified from (Henshaw et al, 2011), used
with permission))
In the above figure the capability needed to enable an enterprise to achieve its goals is delivered by the synchronized
use of services. Those services are provided by a service system ,which is created, sustained and deployed by one or
more organizations. A service system is composed of people, technology, information, and access to related services
and other necessary resources. Some of these resources are provided by enabling services and the technological
elements may be developed and supplied as product systems. An enterprise system describes a collection of related
capabilities and associated services which together enable the achievement of the overall purpose of an enterprise as
a government, business or societal entity. Measurement and review of enterprise goals may define needs for change
which require an organization to acquire or modify, and integrate the elements needed to evolve its service systems.
The general terminology above is described briefly in the associated glossary definitions and expanded in related
articles in Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering.
Engineered System Context

Engineered systems are developed as combinations of products and services within a life cycle. The figure below
gives a general view of the full context for any potential application of a SE life cycle.
Figure 3: General Engineered System Context (SEBoK original)
In this view a service system related directly to a capability need sets the overall boundary. This need establishes the
problem situation or opportunity which encapsulates the starting point of any life cycle. Within this service system
are the related services, products and people (or intelligent software agents) needed to fully deliver a solution to that
need. The environment includes any people, organizations, rules or conditions which influence or constrain the
service system or the things within it. The SoI for a particular SE life cycle may be defined at any level of this
general context. While the focus of the context will vary for each life cycle it is important that some version of this
general context is considered for all SE life cycles, to help maintain a holistic view of problem and solution. This is
discussed in Types of Systems.
An engineered system context describes the context for a SoI so that the necessary understanding can be reached and
the right systems engineering decisions can be made across the life of that SoI. This will require a number of
different views of the context across a SE life cycle, both to identify all external influence on the SoI and to guide
and constraint the systems engineering of the elements of the SoI. A full engineered systems context will include the
problem situation from which a need for a SoI is identified, one or more socio technical solutions, the organizations
needed to create and sustain new solutions and the operational environment within which those solutions must be
integrated, used and eventually disposed. The kinds of views which can be used to represent a SoI context over its
life and how those views can be combined into models is discussed in the Representing Systems with Models KA in
Part 2. The activities which use those models are described conceptually in the Systems Approach Applied to
Engineered Systems KA in part 2 and related to more formal SE life cycle processes in Part 3.
References
Works Cited
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, rev. ed. New York:
Braziller.
Boardman, J. and B. Sauser. 2008. Systems Thinking: Coping with 21st Century Problems. Boca Raton, FL, USA:
Taylor & Francis.
Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Dori, D. 2002. Object-Process Methodology – A Holistic Systems Paradigm. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Henshaw, M., D. Kemp, P. Lister, A. Daw, A. Harding, A. Farncombe, and M. Touchin. 2011. "Capability
engineering – An analysis of perspectives." Presented at International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
21st International Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, June 20-23, 2011.
Hitchins, D. 2009. “What are the general principles applicable to systems?” INCOSE Insight, vol. 12, no. 4, pp.
59-63.
4.0. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Johnson, R.A., F.W. Kast, and J.E. Rosenzweig. 1963. The Theory and Management of Systems. New York, NY,
USA: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Koestler, A. 1990. The Ghost in the Machine, 1990 reprint ed. Sturgis, Michigan, USA: Penguin Group.
Martin, J, 2004. "The seven samurai of systems engineering: Dealing with the complexity of 7 interrelated systems."
Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering International Symposium, 20-24 June,
2004, Toulouse, France, 20-24 June, 2004.
Miles, R.F. (ed). 1973. System Concepts. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
M’Pherson, P.K. 1974. "A perspective on systems science and systems philosophy." Futures. Vol. 6, no. 3, pp.
219-39.
Simon, H.A. 1962. "The architecture of complexity." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 106,
no. 6 (Dec. 12, 1962), pp. 467-482.
Primary References
NY, USA: Braziller.
4.0. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Hybertson, Duane. 2009. Model-Oriented Systems Engineering Science: A Unifying Framework for Traditional and
Complex Systems. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Hubka, Vladimir, and W. E. Eder. 1988. Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering
Design. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Laszlo, E., ed. 1972. The Relevance of General Systems Theory: Papers Presented to Ludwig von Bertalanffy on His
Seventieth Birthday. New York, NY, USA: George Brazillier.

Systems Engineering Core Concepts

Lead Author: Gary Smith
Concepts are the fundamental building blocks for the construction of theories, principles, thoughts and beliefs. They
play an important role in all aspects of cognition and communication.
Purpose and Uses of the Systems Engineering Concept Model

The Systems Engineering Concept Model (SECM) captures the concepts that are referred to in the Systems
Engineering Body of Knowledge. The SECM provides a means to evaluate the consistency and coverage across the
broad set of Systems Engineering concepts, and can facilitate communication to better understand and evolve these
concepts. Although the primary reference for the SECM was the SEBoK, the concepts were cross-checked against
other industry references including ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015 and the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook
Version 4, enabling the SECM to be used to evaluate, understand, and evolve the concepts in these references as
well. A small team developed the SECM to support the requirements for the next generation of the OMG Systems
Modeling Language (OMG SysML™) to ensure SysML is consistent with the three leading industry standards.
SECM Approach
A concept model, called the Concept Map, was developed by the original SEBoK team prior to release of the SEBoK
v1.0 in 2012 and was used to support integration of the initial concepts across the SEBoK topic areas. The Concept
Map included a concept model and a mapping of the concepts to the glossary terms and to the sections of the
SEBoK.
The SECM captures the Systems Engineering concepts and their relationship that are contained in today’s SEBoK.
The small subset of UML constructs and symbols, shown in Figure 1, are used to represent the SECM model. The
choice of notations is intended to balance simplicity, understandability, and precision.
Figure 1. Concept Relationships used in the SECM. (SEBoK Original)
Figure 2 below shows a usage of these constructs and symbols when applied to a simple example of a Car. This
diagram shows that a Car is kind of a Vehicle, and that the Driver drives the car (a reference relationship), and that
there are four wheels that are parts of the Car.
Figure 2. Example of Relationships between

Concepts (SEBoK Original)
The SECM is presented in a series of diagrams that generally represent concepts for particular knowledge areas and
topics in the SEBoK, and also includes references to glossary terms in the SEBoK.
The approach used to capture the SECM content from the SEBoK is described in the following steps:
1. A topic within a SEBoK knowledge area is selected and the text is evaluated to identify key Systems Engineering
concepts.
2. From the sentences containing the concepts, the subjects, i.e. the concepts, and the predicate, i.e. the relationship
between concepts, are identified. The predicate is a statement that says something about the subject.
3. A search is conducted for this concept in other areas of the SEBoK, and the accompanying text is evaluated to
further refine the concept and its relationships to other concepts.
4. The definition of the concept in the SEBoK glossary, if available, is evaluated.
5. The use and definition of this concept in the other two industry references is evaluated.
6. The concept and a derived definition from the above evaluation are added to the SECM.
7. The discovered relationships between the concepts are added to the model and to the relevant diagrams. The
diagrams group related concepts that are often associated with a SEBoK Knowledge Area or Topic.
8. As new contributions are made to the SEBoK, this approach can be used to identify new concepts and
relationships, and add them to the SECM.
Introduction to Core Concepts

The SECM was developed independently of the BKCASE project to support the evolution of the SysML standard.
These models can be used to identify inconsistencies and/or areas requiring additional coverage within the SEBoK to
support future updates.
The Core Concept Diagram shown in Figure 3 provides a high-level view of the some of the key concepts presented
in the SEBoK. It should be emphasized that this figure is intended to be a representative interpretation of the current
SEBoK without modifying or adding concepts, and no claim of the completeness of the SEBoK concepts is made.
The colors correspond to logical groupings of concepts.
Figure 3. Core SEBoK Concepts. (SysML Roadmap SECM. Used with permission)
A brief description of the core concepts model is provided below.

A Systems Engineer is a role within an Organization that practices the Engineering Discipline of Systems
Engineering (SE), and is qualified by a set of SE Competencies. Systems Engineering integrates other Disciplines to
support the Life Cycle Model. The Life Cycle Model is composed of life cycle Stages that typically include
conceptual, realization, production, support, utilization and retirement stages (not shown). Each life cycle Stage
refers to Life Cycle Processes that produce various kinds of Work Products. The Life Cycle Processes evolve the
System-of-Interest (SoI).
There are many kinds of systems, including natural systems, social systems, and technological systems (not shown).
Systems that are created by and for people are referred to as Engineered Systems. An Engineered System whose life
cycle is under consideration is referred to as a System-of-Interest (SoI).
A System-of-Interest is part of a broader System Context, which also includes an Environment. The Environment
consists of other open systems (not shown) that can influence the SoI. Systems are composed of System Elements
and have Behavior and Properties. Systems can exhibit Emergence and Complexity.
Systems Engineering uses a System Approach which applies established system Principles. Systems Science is an
interdisciplinary field of science that studies complex systems and helps define and update the Principles that are
applied by the System Approach, which is used by the discipline of Systems Engineering.
References
Works Cited
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015. Systems and Software Engineering -- System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organisation for Standardisation/International Electrotechnical Commissions/Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
4.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0.
OMG. SysML Roadmap: Systems Engineering Concept Model Workgroup (SECM) Available at: http:/ / www.
omgwiki.org/OMGSysML/doku.php?id=sysml-roadmap%3Asystems_engineering_concept_model_workgroup.
Primary References
Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
4.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0.
None

Systems Engineering Principles

Lead Author: Michael Watson, Contributing Authors: Bryan Mesmer, Garry Roedler, David Rousseau, Chuck
Keating, Rob Gold, Javier Calvo-Amodio, Cheryl Jones, William D. Miller, Scott Lucero, Aileen Sedmak, Art Pyster
Every discipline has a set of underlying principles which fundamentally characterize it. Discipline knowledge and
practice are either explicitly or implicitly derived from its principles. For example, one of the principles of physics is
that the speed of light is constant. This specific principle has been validated countless times in practice and is
broadly accepted as how the universe works. One common economic principle is that “Every choice has an
opportunity cost”. (University of Minnesota n.d.) Another is the principle of supply, which states that “The quantity
of a good supplied rises as the market price rises and falls as the price falls”. (Ehrbar 2007) Generally, disciplines do
not have one authoritative complete set of principles. Different authors emphasize different aspects of a discipline in
the principles they identify and explain. As fields mature, new principles emerge, and old principles may change. For
example, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity revealed that the principles underlying Newtonian physics were not
absolutely true. Yet, they are still immensely valuable most of the time.
Introduction
Systems engineering is a young discipline. The emergence of a set of systems engineering principles occurred over
the past 30 years within the discipline. The development of these principles derives from many sources including
heuristics Systems Engineering Heuristics (i.e., experience based), sociology, physical sciences, and mathematics.
The INCOSE Systems Engineering Principles Action Team (SEPAT) reviewed various sources of systems principles
and systems engineering principles identified in literature over this period. This article surveys this work and
identifies a set of systems engineering principles based on this review.
Systems engineering principles are a form of guidance proposition which provide guidance in application of the
systems engineering processes and a basis for the advancement of systems engineering. Systems engineering has
many kinds of guidance propositions that can be classified by their sources, e.g. heuristics (derived from practical
experience), conventions (derived from social agreements), values (derived from cultural perspectives), and models
(based on theoretical mechanisms). Although these all support purposeful judgement or action in a context, they can
vary greatly in scope, authority, and conferred capability. They can all be refined, and as they mature, they gain in
their scope, authority, and capability, while the set becomes more compact. A key moment in their evolution occurs
with gaining insight into why they work, at which point they become principles. Principles can have their origins
associated in referring to them as "heuristic principles", "social principles", "cultural principles", and "scientific
principles", although in practice it is usually sufficient to just refer to principles. Systems engineering principles are
derived from principles of these various origins providing a diverse set of transcendent principles based on both
practice and theory (Rousseau, Pennotti, & Brook 2022).
System principles differ from systems engineering principles differ in important ways (Watson 2018a). System
principles address the behavior and properties of all kinds of systems, looking at the scientific basis for a system and
characterizing this basis in a system context via specialized instances of a general set of system principles. SE
principles are a specialized and contextualized instantiation of systems principles that address the approach to the
realization, use, and retirement of systems. SE principles build on systems principles that are general for all kinds of
systems (Rousseau, 2018a) and for all kinds of human activity systems (Senge 1990, Calvo-Amodio & Rousseau
2019). Hence, system principles guide the definition and application of SE processes – a strong systems engineer
must be the master of both system principles and SE principles.
A number of people have proposed SE underlying principles, in part by building on system principles. Perhaps
because of its youth, a consensus among the community is still developing on which SE principles are most central.
Yet, it is valuable to examine a number of proposed SE principles as they offer insight into what some of the best
minds in the field think are fundamental to the discipline. In reviewing various published SE principles, a set of
criteria emerged for valid SE principles. A principle:
• transcends a particular lifecycle model or phase
• transcends system types
• transcends a system context
• informs a world view on SE
• is not a “how to” statement
• is supported by literature or widely accepted by the community; i.e. has proven successful in practice across
multiple organizations and multiple system types
• is focused, concise, and clearly worded
Thus, system type, the context in which the system is developed and operated, or a life cycle phase do not narrowly
define systems engineering principles. Systems engineering principles transcend these system characteristics and
inform a worldview of the discipline. Principles are not “how to” statements, which are embodied in the processes,
but provide guidance in making decisions in applying the systems engineering processes. Principles should have a
strong reference basis supported by literature, or widely accepted in practice (i.e. heuristic basis) (keeping in mind
that this success must transcend the system characteristics mentioned above), or both. Principles are focused,
concise, and clear in well-constructed principles statements.
Literature currently contains several good articles on system principles. These principles provide a basis for the
functioning of a system and seek to group scientific axioms, laws, and principles into a set of system principles. The
main themes seen in the literature on system principles include system governance, system theory axioms, and
system pathologies with a focus on complex systems and system of systems. Complex System Governance provides
a set of nine Metasystem functions “To provide control, communication, coordination, and integration of a complex
system”. These functions provide a basis from which to understand the functions of complex systems and how to
manage their acquisition (i.e., governance). (Keating et al. 2017a) These Metasystem functions also extend to
systems of systems engineering (Keating et al. 2017b).
Advances in system theory produced a set of unified propositions stated as seven axioms “From which all other
propositions in systems theory may be induced”. These seven axioms map to 30 scientific laws and principles
(Adams et al. 2014). These axioms focus on the scientific basis of systems. Further work on these axioms provides
an integration construct and a slightly different mapping to the underlying scientific laws and principles (Whitney et
al. 2015). This work provides a strong integration and advancement in system theory, focusing on the principles
behind the scientific basis of a system.
System science approaches also incorporate system theory leading to 10 concepts of systems theory and systems
thinking (Sillitto 2014). These 10 concepts focus on system principles providing a definition of system
characteristics. A further development in system sciences produced a list of 12 systems sciences principles that also
focus on the characteristics of systems (Mobus and Kalton 2015). Rousseau formally derived a statement and
derivation of three principles of systems (Rousseau 2018a). In addition, an architecture of systemology and typology
of system principles provides a good classification of scientific principles spanning from system philosophy through
system practice (Rousseau 2018b). This work led to a framework for understanding system science principles
(Rousseau 2018c).
Other early work included a set of seven system science principles exhibited by systems (Hitchins 1992).
Organizational principles were also defined as a set of 11 principles dealing with how to work successfully within an
organization (Senge 1990). Principles of Systems Thinking describes a set of 20 system thinking principles captured
and integrated from a variety of sources.
System pathologies is another interesting approach to understand “Circumstances that act to limit system
performance or lessen system viability (continued existence) and as such they reduce the likelihood of a system
meeting performance expectations”. These pathologies define diagnostics for understanding systems derived from a
set of 45 system laws and principles. (Katina et al. 2016)

INCOSE compiled an early list of principles. This list consisted of 8 principles and 61 sub-principles (Defoe 1993).
These principles were important considerations in practice for the success of system developments and ultimately
became the bases for SE processes. These principles are reflective of how SE works in general. Following this work,
several early versions of SE principles were compiled leading up to one of the first documented sets of SE processes.
Project Performance International (Halligan 2019) has a set of SE principles that follow along the model set by
Defoe providing considerations in the practice of SE, focusing on specific aspects within life cycle phases.
The Korean Council on Systems Engineering provided a survey article of 8 works on SE principles spanning the
time from Defoe’s principles through 2004 (Han 2004), including an early version of the PPI principles. These 8
works showed evolution of systems engineering principles from practice focused to more transcendent focused
principles. In 1997, the INCOSE Systems Engineering Principles Working Group (no longer active) generated a set
of 8 principles building from the work of Defoe over the course of several years of discussions. These principles
were a mixture of process basis, modeling guidelines, and an early world view of the SE focus. The Institute of
Electrical Engineers (IEE 2000), now part of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), produced a set of
12 principles that also provided some basis for the systems engineering processes which are no longer extant.
Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (LNBL 2001) produced a set of systems engineering principles that embody
the concepts captured by the INCOSE SE processes. In England, the Defence Engineering Group (DEG 2002)
produced an SE Handbook with a brief set of principles guiding their processes and capturing some aspects of
systems principles. Iowa State University is reported to have produced an SE Student Handbook containing a short
list of SE heuristic phrases stated as principles. The KCOSE paper also referenced a lecture on SE principles from a
course at the University of Southern California (USC) (Jackson, 2003). This lecture defined a principle as “A
statement or generalization of a truth reflected in the systems engineering process”, showing the focus on processes
in the early SE principle development.
Some early forms of SE principles were also contained in textbooks on complex system development. (Adamsen II
2000) This set of principles assume a hierarchical system representation (complex systems have since shown to be
more networks than hierarchies) and include statements on SE processes. Finally, system architecting books also
included some early SE heuristics (Maier and Rechtin 2002). These heuristics read as sayings about some aspect of
systems engineering practice.
The KCOSE Technical Board reviewed these 8 sources and voted that 8 of the principles from these sources as a set
of SE principles, leading to an early form of transcendent principles consistent with the criteria defined above. These
sources all show the early evolution stages of the SE principles as people looked at both formal and informal (i.e.,
course notes and student handbooks) sources to try to understand SE principles. The definition of the SE processes in
works such as the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook fulfilled some of the objectives of these early works on
SE principles and consolidated a lot of the work in this area. Recently, the need for more transcendent SE principles
has been recognized, as a guide for applying the processes, which is the focus of current work by the SEPAT.
Over the last several years, a fresh look at the set of SE principles has emerged from the SEPAT. (Watson, et al.
2019) (INCOSE 2022) Its effort is based on SE postulates, principles, and hypotheses from the NASA Systems
Engineering Research Consortium. This consortium followed the approach of Ludwig Boltzmann in defining his
postulates on gas distribution laws. Boltzmann’s work is an early example of how to characterize the interactions of
complex systems. A postulate is something assumed without proof to be true, real, or necessary. (Webster 1988) This
led to the articulation of a set of postulates and hypotheses underlying SE which were expanded into a proposed set
of SE principles. The underlying SE postulates and hypotheses matured over the course of 4 years (Watson et al.
2014; Watson et al. 2015; Watson & Farrington 2016). As the postulates matured so did the SE principles, providing
more specifics in the application of SE, and the proof of a hypothesis becoming a principle (Watson et al. 2018;
Watson 2018b). The final version of the principles is contained in a NASA Technical Publication on theory of
systems engineering (Watson, et. al. 2020a) and a NASA Technical Publication on application of systems
engineering approaches in practice. (Watson, et. al. 2020b)

The SEPAT developed 15 principles and 3 hypotheses, some expanded by subprinciples, described in INCOSE
(2022). These were peer reviewed by several professional societies and represent the firsts steps towards consensus
on systems engineering principles. These principles are:
1. SE in application is specific to stakeholder needs, solution space, resulting system solution(s), and context
throughout the system life cycle.
2. SE has a holistic system view that includes the system elements and the interactions amongst themselves, the
enabling systems, and the system environment.
3. SE influences and is influenced by internal and external resources, and political, economic, social, technological,
environmental, and legal factors.
4. Both policy and law must be properly understood to not overly constrain or under-constrain the system
implementation.
5. The real system is the perfect representation of the system. (models are only representations of real systems)
6. A focus of SE is a progressively deeper understanding of the interactions, sensitivities, and behaviors of the
system, stakeholder needs, and its operational environment.
7. Systems Engineering addresses changing stakeholder needs a over the system life cycle.
8. SE addresses stakeholder needs, taking into consideration budget, schedule, and technical needs, along with other
expectations and constraints.
9. SE decisions are made under uncertainty accounting for risk.
10. Decision quality depends on knowledge of the system, enabling system(s), and interoperating system(s) present
in the decision-making process.
11. SE spans the entire system life cycle.
12. Complex systems are engineered by complex organizations.
13. SE integrates engineering and scientific disciplines in an effective manner.
14. SE is responsible for managing the discipline interactions within the organization.
15. SE is based on a middle range set of theories.
The SEPAT’s recent articulation of SE principles elaborates on points made earlier by Defoe and emphasizes
additional aspects of current SE practices, but there is nothing inconsistent between the two sets.
Principles of SE such as those proposed by Defoe and more recently articulated by the SEPAT are domain
independent; i.e. they apply independent of the type of system being built, whether it is for transportation, healthcare,
communication, finance, or any other business or technical domain. As they are applied, these principles can take
more specialized forms, and/or can be complemented by other context-specific principles. Indeed, general SE
principles such as these have been successfully applied in virtually every domain.
References
Works Cited
Adams, K. M., Hester, P. T., Bradley, J. M., Meyers, T. J., & Keating, C. B. 2014. Systems Theory as the Foundation
for Understanding Systems. Systems Engineering, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 112–123.
Adamsen II, Paul B. 2000. A Framework for Complex System Development, Chapter 7. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Press.
Calvo-Amodio, J., & Rousseau, D. 2019. “The Human Activity System: Emergence from Purpose, Boundaries,
Relationships, and Context,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 153, pp. 91-99.
Cutler, William. 1997. Presented at INCOSE Principles WG Session, Tuesday, August, 5th, 1997, Los Angeles, CA
Defoe, J.C., Ed. 1993. National Council on Systems Engineering: An Identification of Pragmatic Principles, Final
Report. SE Practice Working Group. Subgroup on Pragmatic Principles. Bethesda, MD, USA: NCOSE WMA
Chapter.
DEG (Defence Engineering Group). 2002. The Defence Systems Engineering Handbook, London, UK: University
College London. pg. 12.
Edwards, B., Ed. 2001. A Systems Engineering Primer for Every Engineer and Scientist. Berkeley, CA, USA:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. pp. 6-7.
Ehrbar, A. 2007. "Supply," in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. The Library of Economics and Liberty,
[online document]. Available: The Library of Economics and Liberty [1]. Accessed May 14, 2020.
Jackson, S. 2003. “Principles of Systems Engineering” from the lecture note used in the course called Systems
Engineering Theory and Practice at University of Southern California.
Han, M-D. 2004. “Systems engineering principles revisited.” Proceedings of the 14th INCOSE International
Symposium, Session 6 Track 2: Researching SE Methodologies & Approaches in SE Research, Toulouse, France,
June 20-24, 2004.
Halligan, Robert. 2019. Project Performance International Systems Engineering, Systems Engineering Principles.
Hitchins, D. 1992. Putting Systems to Work. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 60–71.
INCOSE. 2022. International Council on Systems Engineering Systems Engineering Principles Publication.
Katina, P. F. 2016. “Systems theory as a foundation for discovery of pathologies for complex system problem
formulation,” in Applications of Systems Thinking and Soft Operations Research in Managing Complexity. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer. pp. 227–267.
Keating, C. B., Katina, P. F., Jaradat, R., Bradley, J. M. and Gheorghe, A. V. 2017. “Acquisition system
development: A complex system governance perspective,” INCOSE International Symposium, vol. 27, pp. 811–825.
doi:10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00395.x
Keating, C. B., Katina, P. F., Gheorghe, A. V. and Jaradat, R. 2017. Complex System Governance: Advancing
Prospects for System of Systems Engineering Applications.
Meir, M. W. and Rechtin, E. 2002. “Appendix A: Heuristics for systems-level architecting,” in The Art of Systems
Architecting, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Mobus, G. E., & Kalton, M. C. 2015. Principles of Systems Science. New York, NY, USA: Springer. pp. 17–30.
Neufeldt, V. and Guralnik, D. B., Eds. 1988. Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition. New York,
NY, USA: Simon & Schuster. pg. 1055.
Oxford College of Marketing. 2016. “What is a PESTEL analysis?” Available: https:/ / blog.
oxfordcollegeofmarketing.com/2016/06/30/pestel-analysis/.Accessed May 2, 2022.
Rousseau, D. 2018a. “Three general systems principles and their derivation: Insights from the philosophy of science
applied to systems concepts,” in Madni et. al., Eds., Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 665–681.
Rousseau, D. 2018b. “On the architecture of systemology and the typology of its principles." Systems, vol. 6, no. 1,
pg. 7.
Rousseau, D. 2018c. “A framework for understanding systems principles and methods.” Proceedings of the INCOSE
International Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, July 7–12, 2018.
Rousseau, D., Pennotti, M., Brook, P. (2022). Systems Engineering’s Evolving Guidelines. Report of the INCOSE
Bridge Team, presented to the INCOSE Systems Science Working Group on January 31, 2022. Available: https:/ /
drive.google.com/file/d/1JibL44sUh0ztefZQ5Rfy4kGiodXIy63n/view.Accessed March 30, 2022.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London, UK: Random
House.
Sillitto, H. 2014. Architecting Systems. Concepts, Principles and Practice. London, UK: College Publications. pp.
33–38.
University of Minnesota. N.D. Available: https:/ / open. lib. umn. edu/ macroeconomics/ chapter/
1-1-defining-economics/
#:~:text=Every%20choice%20has%20an%20opportunity,forgone%20in%20making%20that%20choice. . Accessed
May 2, 2022.
Watson, M.D. 2018a. “Engineering elegant systems: Postulates, principles, and hypotheses of systems engineering,”
AIAA Complex Aerospace Systems Exchange (CASE) 2018, Future of Systems Engineering Panel, Orlando, FL,
September 2018.
Watson, M.D. 2018b. “Engineering elegant systems: Systems engineering postulates, principles, and hypotheses
related to systems principles,” Proceedings of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Corvallis, OR, July
2018.
Watson, M.D., B.L. Mesmer, G. Roedler, D. Rousseau, R. Gold, J. Calvo-Amodio, C. Jones, W.D. Miller, D., D.
Long, S. Lucero, R.W. Russell, A. Sedmak, and D. Verma. 2019. “Systems engineering principles and hypotheses”,
INCOSE INSIGHT Magazine, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 18-28.
Watson, M.D., S. Long, E-H Ng, and C. Downings ed. 2014. “Building a path to elegant design,” Proceedings of the
American Society for Engineering Management 2014 International Annual Conference, Virginia Beach, Virginia,
USA, October 15-18, 2014.
Watson, M.D. and P.A. Farrington. 2016. “NASA systems engineering research consortium: Defining the path to
elegance in systems”, Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Huntsville, AL, USA,
Mar 22-24, 2016.
Watson, M.D., B.L. Mesmer, B. and P.A. Farrington. 2018. “Engineering elegant systems: Postulates, principles, and
hypotheses of systems engineering”, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Systems Engineering Research,
Charlottesville, VA, USA, May 2018.
Watson, M.D., B.L. Mesmer, and P.A. Farrington ed. 2020a. NASA Systems Engineering Research Consortium:
“Engineering Elegant Systems: Theory of Systems Engineering,” NASA/TP–20205003644, NASA Marshall Space
Flight Center, Huntsville, AL.
Watson, M.D., B.L. Mesmer, and P.A. Farrington. ed. 2020b. NASA Systems Engineering Research Consortium:
“Engineering Elegant Systems: The Practice of Systems Engineering,” NASA/TP–20205003646, NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL.
Whitney, K., J.M. Bradley, D.E. Baugh, and C.W. Chesterman. 2015. “Systems theory as a foundation for
governance of complex systems,” International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, vol. 6, nos. 1–2, pp.
15–32.
Primary References
Defoe, J.C., Ed. 1993. National Council on Systems Engineering: An Identification of Pragmatic Principles, Final
Report. SE Practice Working Group. Subgroup on Pragmatic Principles. Bethesda, MD, USA: NCOSE WMA
Chapter.
Han, M-D. 2004. “Systems Engineering Principles Revisited.” Proceedings of the 14th INCOSE International
Symposium, Session 6 Track 2: Researching SE Methodologies & Approaches in SE Research, Toulouse, France,
June 20-24, 2004.
Rousseau, D. 2018b. “On the Architecture of Systemology and the Typology of its Principles.” Systems, vol. 6, no. 1,
pg. 7.
Rousseau, D. 2018c. “A Framework for Understanding Systems Principles and Methods.” Proceedings of the
INCOSE International Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, July 7–12, 2018.
Watson, M.D., B.L. Mesmer, G. Roedler, D. Rousseau, R. Gold, J. Calvo-Amodio, C. Jones, W.D. Miller, D., D.
Long, S. Lucero, R.W. Russell, A. Sedmak, and D. Verma. 2019. “Systems Engineering Principles and Hypotheses”,
INCOSE INSIGHT Magazine, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 18-28.
None.

SEBoK v. 2.3, released 30 October 2020
References
[1] https:/ / www. econlib. org/ library/ Enc/ Supply. html
Systems Engineering Heuristics

Author: Peter Brook
Heuristics provide a way for an established profession to pass on its accumulated wisdom. This allows practitioners
and others interested in how things are done to gain insights from what has been found to work well in the past and
to apply the lessons learned. Heuristics will usually take the form of short expressions in natural language. These can
be memorable phrases encapsulating rules of thumb, shortcuts or "words to the wise", giving general guidelines on
professional conduct or rules, advice, or guidelines on how to act under specific circumstances. Common heuristics
do not summarize all there is to know, yet they can act as useful entry points for learning more. This article
overviews heuristics in general as well as some of those specifically supporting Systems Engineering practice.
Overview
Heuristics have always played an important part in the history of engineering and shaped its progress, especially
before science developed to the point when it could also assist engineers. Systems Engineering is still at a stage at
which there is no sufficiently reliable scientific basis for many of the systems being built, which has triggered a
renewed interest in heuristics to fill the gap. This is especially true as the practice of Systems Engineering is
extended to provide solutions to inherently complex, unbounded, ill-structured, or "wicked" problems (Churchman
1967).
Using heuristics does not guarantee success under all circumstances, but usefulness of a heuristic can be maximized
if the known extent of its applicability is made clear. At their best, heuristics can act as aids to decision making,
value judgements, and assessments.
Heuristics have the potential to be useful in a number of ways:
• reduce the amount of thinking (or computation) needed to make a good decision or a choice
• help in finding an acceptable solution to a problem
• identify the most important factors to focus on while addressing a complex problem
• improve the quality of decisions by drawing on best practices
• avoid repeating avoidable mistakes

• act as an entry point to wider knowledge of what has been found to work
Historical Background
Engineering first emerged as a series of skills acquired while transforming the ancient world, principally through
buildings, cities, infrastructure, and machines of war. Since then, mankind has sought to codify the knowledge of
"how to." Doing so allows each generation to learn from its predecessors, enabling more complex structures to be
built with increasing confidence while avoiding repeated real-world failures. Setting out the aims for engineering in
the 1st Century BCE, Vitruvius proposed a set of enduring principles: Strength, Utility and Beauty. He provided
many examples of their applications to the fields of engineering of the time.
Vitruvius’ writings were rediscovered in the Middle Ages, forming the basis of the twin professions of architecture
and engineering. Early cathedral builders encapsulated their knowledge in a small number of rules of thumb, such as:
"maintain a low centre of gravity," "put 80% of the mass in the pillars," and "observe empirical ratios between
cross-section and span for cross-members.". Designs were conservative, with large margins, the boundaries of which
were largely unknown. Numerous excellent structures resulted, many of which have endured to this day. When the
design margins were exceeded, for example out of a desire to build higher and more impressive structures, a high
price could be paid, with the collapse of a roof, a tower, or even a whole building. From such failures, new empirical
rules emerged. Much of this took place before the science behind the strength of materials or building secure
foundations was understood. Only in recent times has computer simulation revealed the contribution towards certain
failures played by dynamic effects, such as those of wind shear on tall structures.
Since then, engineering and applicable sciences have co-evolved: science providing the ability to predict and explain
performance of engineered artifacts with greater assurance, and engineering developing new and more complex
systems, requiring new scientific explanations and driving research agendas. In the modern era, complex and
adaptive systems are being built which challenge conventional engineering sciences, with the builders turning to
social and behavioral sciences, management sciences, and increasingly systems science to deal with some of the new
forms of complexity involved and to guide the profession accordingly.
Koen (1985), went further, and argued that the whole of engineering was essentially heuristic in nature, since
engineers could never know everything about whether what they built would meet their original intent, and how it
would interact with an uncertain world. According to Koen, we must do what we can to tie these things down but
make allowances for what we cannot know. He defined the engineering method as: the strategy for causing the best
change in poorly understood or uncertain situation within available resources. He further claimed that heuristics are
the only way of guiding our actions in these circumstances, and that the set of all heuristics agreed or used by a
profession at any one time represents its ‘state of the art’. He also put forward a number of universal heuristic
principles for the conduct of engineering, covering areas such as: rules of thumb, factors of safety, engineers’ attitude
towards their work, managing risk and allocating resources. Although much of what Koen (a chemical engineer by
profession) had to say remains relevant to systems engineers today, there is renewed optimism that scientific SE
principles can be uncovered to underpin the discipline, just as they have done through the ages. (see Systems
Engineering Principles)
Modern Interest
Renewed interest in the application of heuristics to the field of Systems Engineering stems from the seminal work of
Rechtin and Maier (2009). Their book remains the best single repository of such knowledge, although efforts are
now under way within INCOSE to update them for the 21st Century. Their motivation was to provide guidance for
the emerging role of system architect as the person or team responsible for coordinating engineering effort towards
devising solutions to complex problems and overseeing their implementation. Rechtin and Maier observed that it
was in many cases better to apply "rules of thumb" than to attempt detailed analysis, especially when this was
precluded by the number of variables involved, the complexity of the interactions between stakeholders, and the
internal dynamics of system solutions and the organizations responsible for their realization.
An argument in favor of the wider use of heuristics was also made by Mervyn King (2016), who was Governor of
the Bank of England during the 2008 global financial crash. Looking back, he said "it is better to be roughly right
than precisely wrong": banks which observed the old bankers’ rule of maintaining capital assets equal to 70% of their
loan book survived, while those who relied on complex (and flawed) mathematical models of derivatives failed. He
has become a powerful advocate for the use of heuristics alongside formal economics to allow bankers and others to
deal with the uncertainties of global financial affairs in the modern interconnected world.
Further backing for the contemporary use of heuristics comes from Simon (1957), who coined the term "satisficing"
for a situation in which people seek solutions, or accept choices or judgments, that are "good enough" for their
purposes, regardless of whether they can be further optimized by precise analysis. He made the point that some
heuristics were scientifically derived from experiment or systematic collection and analysis of real-world data, while
others were just rules of thumb based on real-world observation or experience.
This idea has been further developed over a number of years by Gigerenzer and co-workers (for example, Gigerenzer
and Selten (2001)), who have conducted research on heuristics which assist in making rapid decisions in areas of
limited predictability, when probability theory is no longer helpful. They have developed a series of what they call
"fast and frugal" rules of general applicability which have outperformed more conventional analysis in such areas as
medical diagnosis and performance science (Raab and Gigerenzer 2015). The application to Systems Engineering
has so far been little explored.
Practical Use
Experience of using heuristics suggests they should be memorable and can be most effective when phrased
informally. The best examples are more than just literal expressions; they should resonate with the readers and
suggest additional meaning, encouraging them to find out more about why and when to use them.
There is an underlying issue here: if you haven’t experienced the situation for which the heuristic applies, it may
mean little to you, and the inherent value may well be lost; but if you already have relevant experience, you may find
it obvious. The use of heuristics is therefore linked to how we learn. In a world where experience is vital, but the
number of opportunities to learn on the job is limited by the number of big projects one systems engineer works on
in a lifetime, the learning process has to be accelerated. Heuristics can help here if linked to other knowledge sources
and accessible at the right points in a career, as part of life-long learning.
A repository of heuristics can also act as a knowledge base in its own right, especially if other media, such as video
clips or training materials, or even interactive media are added to encourage discussion and feedback. Such a
repository might also link to other established knowledge sources or company websites. It can be organized to reflect
accepted areas of practice or in a data base tagged with metadata to allow flexible retrieval. Maier and Rechtin
(2009) suggested that a repository might also act as a "reading room," allowing users to move freely among
associated subjects as if they were following their curiosity in a library or a bookshop. Such a repository could also
allow users to assemble a set of heuristics most meaningful to them, relevant to their personal interest or professional
sphere of activity.
A further possible use of heuristics was demonstrated by Beasley, et al (2014), who used a selection in a survey to
uncover how key aspects of Systems Engineering were addressed within their organization. They asked their staff to
mark the heuristics according to their importance to the business and whether they were observed in practice.
Analysis of the answers allowed attention to be given to areas requiring improvement.
Broadly speaking, interest in heuristics now centers on their use in two main contexts: first, encapsulating
engineering knowledge in an accessible form, where the practice is widely accepted and the underlying science
understood; and second, overcoming the limitations of more analytical approaches, where the science is still of
limited use. In either case, a good set of heuristics requires active maintenance to reflect the evolution of practice and
our constantly developing understanding of what works best. A well-curated collection of heuristics allows
practitioners to retain and represent the accumulated practical wisdom of the community of the Systems Engineering
profession.
This article finishes with a few simple examples applicable to early stages, with some commentary to suggest their
hidden meanings and where they might lead.
• Don’t assume that the original statement of the problem is necessarily the best, or even the right one. The same
point is repeated in many heuristics, such as: "The hidden assumptions are likely to be the most damaging," and
"The customer may know what he wants, but not what he needs." All this has to be handled with tact and respect
for the user, but experience shows that failure to reach mutual understanding early on is a fundamental cause of
failure, and strong relationships forged in the course of doing such work can pay off when solving more difficult
issues which might arise later on.
• In the early stages of a project, unknowns are a bigger issue than known problems. Sometimes what is being
asked for is obscure, and the whole context of the systems engineering remit difficult to know, especially in areas
of high uncertainty. The starting question may be less ‘What are the Requirements for this?" and more "What’s
going on here?". (Kay and King 2020) Unpeeling the layers of meaning behind the second question may require
methods drawn from systems thinking – looking for root causes, for example – and can take a project into
unexpected areas. Again, soft skills such as empathy and intuition may be more important than those of
conventional engineering.
• Model before build, wherever possible. This heuristic draws one in to the deeper question of the general use and
limitation of models as a way that systems engineering tries to predict desirable and undesirable emergent system
properties before committing to build it. A related heuristic states "When you test a model of a system in the real
world, you validate the model not the system," and a Theorem from System Science states "The only complete
model of the system is the system itself." One heuristic leads to another, leading to reflection on how systems are
built in the highly uncertain world of hyperconnected IT systems, where one might postulate that "The only
complete model of the system in its environment is the system in its environment," which leads into using
evolutionary lifecycles, rapid deployment of prototypes, agile life cycles, and so on. The original heuristic opens a
door into 21st Century systems.
• Most of the serious mistakes are made early on. This heuristic summarizes much of what has just been said. Just
to show that much what is believed now might have been known for some time, here is a quote from Plato: "The
beginning is the most important part of the work." (Plato 375 BCE).
Finally a heuristic about heuristics – where they come from and what they are for – is taken from a fortune cookie
and provides a summary: "The work will tell you how to do it." (Wilczek 2015) The serious point being made here –
apart from showing that folk wisdom can have a part to play – is that the most important lessons about how to do
Systems Engineering ultimately derive from the collective experience of the community of systems engineers as they
undertake their profession. Even the science used to support heuristics must prove itself in practical situations.
References
Works Cited
Beasley, R., A. Nolan, and A.C. Pickard. 2014. "When ‘Yes’ is the Wrong Answer." INCOSE International
Symposium, Las Vegas, NV, Jun 30-Jul 3, 2014.
Churchman, C.W. 1967. "Wicked Problems". Management Science. 14(4): B-141–B-146.
Gigerenzer, G. and R. Selten (eds.). 2001. Bounded Rationality. MIT Press.
Kay, J. and M. King. 2020. Radical Uncertainty: Decision-Making for an Unknowable Future. The Bridge St. Press.
King, M. 2016. The End of Alchemy: Money, Banking and the Future of the Global Economy. New York and
London: W.W. Norton and Company.
Koen, B.V. 1985. Definition of the Engineering Method. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering
Education. ISBN-0-57823-101-3.
Maier, M. and E. Rechtin. 2009. The Art of Systems Architecting, 3rd edition. CRC Press.
Plato. 375 BCE. The Republic.
Raab, M. and G. Gigerenzer. 2015. "The Power of Simplicity: A Fast-and-Frugal Heuristics Approach to
Performance Science", Frontiers in Psychology, October 29, 2015.
Simon, H.A. 1957. Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a
Social Setting. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Wilczek, F. 2015. A Beautiful Question: Finding Nature's Deep Design. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Primary References
Gigerenzer, G. and R. Selten (eds.). 2001. Bounded Rationality. MIT Press.
Maier, M. and E. Rechtin. 2009. The Art of Systems Architecting, 3rd edition. CRC Press.
Rechtin, E. 1991. Systems Architecting: Creating and Building Complex Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Simon, H.A. 1957. Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a
Social Setting. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Royal Academy of Engineering. 2010-2011. Philosophy of Engineering, Volumes 1 and 2. Proceedings of seminars
held at Royal Academy of Engineering, June 2010 and October 2011. Accessed April 9, 2021. Available: https:/ /
www.raeng.org.uk/policy/supporting-the-profession/engineering-ethics-and-philosophy/philosophy

118
Knowledge Area: The Nature of Systems
The Nature of Systems

Lead Authors: Randall Anway, Paul McGoey, Curt McNamara, Contributing Authors: Gary Smith
This article introduces The Nature of Systems knowledge area (KA). Systems cannot be separated from their
environment and human conceptions of system are contingent upon relations within specific (constrained)
situations. Whilst the previous sections are concerned with the Introduction to System Fundamentals, or "The
Engineering of Useful Artifacts" (Mobus, Kalton 2014); This section aims to illustrate the nature of systems, a
compact description of essential themes relevant to a 'systems science' approach to this understanding, and to
recognizing interdependencies between systems science and practices of systems engineering.
Topics
This KA contains the following topics:
• Types of Systems
• Cycles and the Cyclic Nature of Systems
Additional articles illustrating general concepts, theories and principles universal to all systems shall be added over
time
System World Views

While a broad spectrum of perspectives on concrete systems derives from practices of Systems Engineering (Sillitto,
et al 2018) and other systems-centered disciplines, the discipline of Systems Science seeks abstract, generalized, and
universally applicable concepts, principles, and theories of systems. The overarching concept ‘system’ applies to any
physical or conceptual subject of interest - including abstract domains of knowledge.
A system is a set of interrelated components. The components are variously linked to one another, and the system
itself is connected to its surroundings. All systems have a boundary. In the case of designed or physical systems, the
boundary is clear. In social and metaphysical systems, the boundary is typically more dynamic, less obvious, and
more open to interpretation. In other words, observers are likely to perceive the boundary of a social or metaphysical
system differently. According to Bogdanov (Bogdanov 1996), a system (or complex) is not simply a collection,
aggregate (or vector) of components and their relationships. A system is a process, or continuous flux of independent
granular processes, concatenated in self-triggering circles of buildup and degradation. Bogdanov's system cannot be
separated from its environment, because it does not simply exist or interact with its environment: it is structurally
coupled with its environment and thus evolves its own environment while co-evolving with it.
A common observation about systems is that they display properties which are not apparent from the properties of
the components themselves. This is sometimes referred to as synergy, or as emergence.
While a system is often perceived as a structure, the unique properties come from the relations between the
components within this structure. For example, trees provide shade from the sun and so can function as a refuge
from heat. In the practice of systems engineering, a system is often identified with its functions. Designed systems
exhibit one or more functions. Functions are useful properties in the context of a higher level system. The functions
being an emergent property of the desired system's behavior, and the system’s behavior enabled by the structure of
the system.
Systems can be both 'physical' and / or 'conceptual' things. Conceptual things, mental processes, often correlate with
physical causes (eg, events observed in brains) and may be considered to 'constitute' a separate class of relational
processes. If 'conceptual' things can be grounded in relational processes correlated with physical causes, it stands to
reason that communicating meaningfully about physical causes at various spatial and temporal scales provides a
theoretical basis for including conceptual and physical things in the domain of 'concrete' systems.
In this narrow sense it may be said that all subjects of interest take part in a 'unitary' system of 'concrete' (physical)
nature. That is, as an irreducible physical unity, the universe is composed of conceptual and physical things existing
in interlocking and subsuming processes of interrelation that may be described in subjectively relatable terms, in
other words, 'understood'.
This 'systemness' (existing understandably in relational processes) is a general characteristic of all things. System
Science provides useful frames of reference for meaningful approaches to both realms generally (eg, physical and
social).
Definitions and Problems of terminology

In this overview article we recognize the (apparent) huge body of literature (a google scholar search on "nature of
systems" returns 13,000 results) on the nature of systems. While a few basic definitions of systems (Sillitto, et al.
2018) are widely accepted in practice, significant differences in specialized usage exist.
Thus, here we try to use commonly understood terms meaningful to both both practitioners and scientists. While
potentially useful to consider this diversity in terms of a more broadly organized taxonomy, it's helpful to appreciate
that terminology is unlikely to be permanently 'fixed' or fully normalized; this contingent relation with human
expression is a feature of the universe and dynamic interactions within it.
The dual nature of such contingency is notably paradoxical. On one hand, incommensurate terminology can present
problems. On the other: opportunity. Together, in the open-ended relation between 'problem' and 'opportunity',
interesting things can occur.
The available knowledge about systems is very rich indeed but it is yet chaotic (the system of system knowledge
often yields more questions than answers) and the domain of system science relates variously with many knowledge
domains (specializations) in the broader culture. One of the goals of system science, therefore, is to purposively help
reconcile such 'geographical' concerns - literally and figuratively. This leads to validating questions of valuation and
realization for systems knowledge and systems science pursuits.
Value of systems knowledge

The nature of systems, as one of the most powerful and widely used paradigmatic conceptions is a common thread
across human existence. Generally, systems in the universe do not embody human agency - humans and system
scientists do. The validation, legitimation, and valuation of systems knowledge generally occurs in its relation
between human situations. More specifically, system science in the service of systems engineering (or vice versa)
recognizes and is capable of anticipating and delivering value for system stakeholders - who are typically situated in
systems of other derivation (cultures that do not necessarily share a common system language).
Systems science (as an activity system) adds value by organizing and tailoring concepts, theories, principles and
assets which render useful expressions of fact, concern, effect or degree pertaining to forms, functions, and fitness of
systems in the landscape of systems competencies.
These patterns of expression help stakeholders anticipate complex dynamic situations and compose descriptions and
sequences of action (eg, plans) in multiple relatable - and reliable - ways. System scientists must communicate with
a range of stakeholders in order for systems to be engineered to operate predictably well. In turn, stakeholders must
be conversant in the 'local' language(s) of their systemic interest; often this takes priority and the value of system
science is in expressing knowledge in terms stakeholders understand rather than the other way around.
Clearly, the nature of systems can be elusive and pursuit of systems knowledge a great challenge. Future articles in
this KA are continually being developed to complement (and also improve upon) existing articles. The concepts in
the titles of the articles can always be improved upon but the essence of the content should be consistent with this
compact description, as it captures foundational themes in our understanding of the relation between human minds
and the universe we are present to.
A Set of Systems Concerns

One of the aims of this section is to illustrate the wide array of concerns in systems science literature. Looking
across the literature, there is a a notable variety of useful categorical mappings and taxonomies. Here we introduce
ten representative concerns of systems science; the list is intended to be illustrative rather than definitive.
1. Identity: Bounded networks of relations among simplified elements constitute a nominal and semantically
meaningful unit, pragmatically speaking. This 'systemness' is a general characteristic of all things and can often
be represented (expressed) as a non-random (informative) network of symbols.
2. Processes: layers, levels, and dimensions of dynamically changing structure and function.
3. Networks of relations between elements: connectivity, structure, and holistic properties such as resilience,
criticality, efficiency.
4. Dynamics on multiple time scales: states and sequences of change such as growth, collapse, cycling,
pattern-formation, criticality.
5. Complexity : variability in number of elements and dimensions of element relations including additivity,
connectivity, and inter-adaptability (contingency, dependency).
6. Evolution: progression of qualitative, quantitative, and/or semantic change over time.
7. Information: matter and energy 'encoded' within network(s) of relation or exchange between senders and
receivers.
8. Governance: modes of mutual regulation and adaptation between elements, typically involving synergetic
co-operation or competitive interference.
9. Contingency: degrees of freedom within a network of constraints which the system is subject to.
10. Methods of interaction. Profoundly, every system has a kind of signature; a unique way of showing up to
human cognition, through which it reveals or exchanges information and yields knowledge about its state and
identity; Practically, this involves (human) stakeholders and their respective processes of attention. In regard to
system science and engineering - attention to specific exchanges of energies through bounded interfaces (eg,
scientific instrumentation; sensing/measuring systems), rather than narrowing-in on surface experience of
limitations and boundaries. In other words, system science is a process of open ended learning.
Gaining a 'feel' for systems

Systems are an ordinary occurrence; we are immersed in systems. It is a challenge, however to discover the unity in
the immense diversity of ways systems manifest in experience. Some 'hard won' ways of thinking about systems
seem to have been more consequential than others, however. Principles of electromagnetism and thermodynamics
have formed much of the basis for industrialized systems, while principles of cybernetics and networks have been
foundational for information systems. In mathematics, iterated function systems and complexity science have
provided insights into the ontogeny of complex organic forms. An understanding of living systems seems to be
served by a complex amalgam of these fundamental insights.
This is by no means a complete landscape of systems concepts, rather it may help to scaffold useful entry points into
diverse inspirations and instrumental concepts for effective and innovative professional practice in systems
engineering.
Value of a Systems Science Foundation for Systems Engineers

The urgency of understanding common foundations of systems for practicing SE's can be summarized in three
points:
1. Civilization depends upon highly evolved physical and conceptual systems and recent evidence from planetary
science https://www.ipcc.ch/reports [1] indicates that planetary support systems are changing significantly and
relatively quickly. Civilization is an ongoing co-evolutionary System of Systems with Humankinds' Planetary
Support system, and recent evidence indicates that the rate of change is increasing; Civilization depends upon
highly evolved planetary systems and recent evidence from planetary science (limits to growth update) indicates
that these are changing significantly and relatively quickly;
2. The practice of Systems Engineering is embedded in and co-evolves with the proliferation of socio-technical
systems that constitute modern civilization;
3. Designing, integrating, and evolving socio-technical systems becomes more complex and challenging as new
technical specialists become involved in Systems Engineering processes. For instance, adding environmental,
economic, social, and governance specialties in-creases workload for the key Systems Engineering role of System
Integrator and Communicator.
The considerable value of Systems Science could be demonstrated in helping address these key Systems Engineering
challenges by:
1. Framing common-view characteristics of all systems relevant to a given System of Interest and the environment
of interacting System of Systems 's so that appropriate tools, techniques, and processes can be employed and/or
developed for efficiently working across the system design and development community;
2. Facilitating effective cooperation between diverse technical specialists bringing unique concepts, models, and
vocabularies and promoting inclusive equity for enhanced project/program/system success: it's essential for all
stakeholders to appreciate their specific situational role(s) in systems of interest co-evolution with interacting
systems of systems, to more effectively engage in realizing critical shared objectives.
References
Works Cited
Bogdanov, A. A. (1996). Bogdanov's tektology. Book 1. Hull, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull.
IPCC AR6. (2022) Mitigation of Climate Change. Climate Change.
Sillitto, H. Griego, R. Arnold, E. Dori, D. Martin, J. Mckinney, D. Godfrey, P. Krob, D. Jackson, S. (2018). What do
we mean by “system”? - System Beliefs and Worldviews in the INCOSE Community. INCOSE International
Symposium. 28. 1190-1206. 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2018.00542.x.
Metcalf, G. S. Kijima K; Deguchi H. (2021). Handbook of Systems Sciences.
Primary References
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press.
Mobus, G. E. and M. C. Kalton (2014). Principles of Systems Science, Springer New York.
Smith, E. and H.J. Morowitz, The Origin and Nature of Life on Earth: The Emergence of the Fourth Geosphere.
2016: Cambridge University Press.
Trefil, J.S., The Nature of Science: An A-Z Guide to the Laws and Principles Governing Our Universe. 2003:
Houghton Mifflin.
None.

References
[1] https:/ / www. ipcc. ch/ reports
Types of Systems
Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Brian Wells, Scott Jackson
This article forms part of The Nature of Systems knowledge area (KA). It provides various perspectives on system
classifications and types of systems, expanded from the definitions presented in What is a System?.
The modern world has numerous kinds of systems that influence daily life. Some examples include transport
systems; solar systems; telephone systems; the Dewey Decimal System; weapons systems; ecological systems; space
systems; etc. Indeed, it seems there is almost no end to the use of the word “system” in today’s society.
This article considers the different classification systems which some systems science authors have proposed in an
attempt to extract some general principles from these multiple occurrences. These classification schemes look at
either the kinds of elements from which the system is composed or its reason for existing.
The idea of an engineered system is expanded. Four specific types of engineered system context are generally
recognized in systems engineering: product system, service system, enterprise system and system of systems.
System Classification
A taxonomy is "a classification into ordered categories" (Dictionary.com 2011). Taxonomies are useful ways of
organizing large numbers of individual items so their similarities and differences are apparent. No single standard
systems taxonomy exists, although several attempts have been made to produce a useful classification taxonomy, e.g.
(Bertalanffy 1968) and (Miller 1986).
Kenneth Boulding (Boulding 1956), one of the founding fathers of general system theory, developed a systems
classification which has been the starting point for much of the subsequent work. He classifies systems into nine
types:
1. Structures (Bridges)
2. Clock works (Solar system)
3. Controls (Thermostat)
4. Open (Biological cells)
5. Lower organisms (Plants)
6. Animals (Birds)
7. Man (Humans)
8. Social (Families)
9. Transcendental (God)
These approaches also highlight some of the subsequent issues with these kinds of classification. Boulding implies
that physical structures are closed and natural while social ones are open. However, a bridge can only be understood
by considering how it reacts to traffic crossing it, and it must be sustained or repaired over time (Hitchins 2007).
Boulding also separates humans from animals, which would not fit into more modern thinking.
Peter Checkland (Checkland 1999, 111) divides systems into five classes: natural systems, designed physical
systems, designed abstract systems, human activity systems and transcendental systems. The first two classes are
self-explanatory.
• Designed abstract systems – These systems do not contain any physical artifacts but are designed by humans to
serve some explanatory purpose.
• Human activity systems – These systems are observable in the world of innumerable sets of human activities
that are more or less consciously ordered in wholes as a result of some underlying purpose or mission. At one
extreme is a system consisting of a human wielding a hammer. At the other extreme lies international political
systems.
• Transcendental systems – These are systems that go beyond the aforementioned four systems classes, and are
considered to be systems beyond knowledge.
Checkland refers to these five systems as comprising a “systems map of the universe”. Other, similar categorizations
of system types can be found in (Aslaksen 1996), (Blanchard 2005) and (Giachetti 2009).
Magee and de Weck (Magee and de Weck 2004) provide a comprehensive overview of sources on system
classification such as (Maier and Rechtin 2009), (Paul 1998) and (Wasson 2006). They cover some methods for
classifying natural systems, but their primary emphasis and value to the practice of systems engineer is in their
classification method for human-designed, or man-made, systems. They examine many possible methods that
include: degree of complexity, branch of the economy that produced the system, realm of existence (physical or in
thought), boundary, origin, time dependence, system states, human involvement / system control, human wants,
ownership and functional type. They conclude by proposing a functional classification method that sorts systems by
their process (transform, transport, store, exchange, or control), and by the entity on which they operate (matter,
energy, information and value).
Types of Engineered System

The figure below is a general view of the context for any potential application of an engineered system life cycle.
Figure 1: General types of Engineered System of Interest (SoI) (SEBoK original)
Figure 1 shows four general cases of system of interest (SoI) which might be the focus of a life cycle.
• A technology focused product system SoI embedded within one or more integrated products,
• An integrated multi-technology product system SoI used directly to help provide a service,
• An enabling service system SoI supporting multiple service systems
• A service system SoI created and sustained to directly deliver capability.
Products and Product Systems

The word product is defined as "a thing produced by labor or effort; or anything produced" (Oxford English
Dictionary). In a commercial sense a product is anything which is acquired, owned and sustained by an organization
and used by an enterprise (hardware, software, information, personnel, etc.).
A product system is an engineered system in which the focus of the life cycle is to develop and deliver products to an
acquirer for internal or external use to directly support the delivery of services needed by that acquirer.
A product systems life cycle context will describe a technology focused SoI plus the related products, people and
services with which the SoI is required to interact. Note, the people associated with a product system over its life
(e,g, operators, maintainers, producers, etc.) sit outside of the product SoI, since they are not delivered as part of the
product. However, to develop a successful product, it is essential to fully understand its human interfaces and
influences as part of its context. The product context will also define the service systems within which it will be
deployed to help provide the necessary capability to the acquiring enterprise.
In a product life cycle, this wider context defines the fixed and agreed relationships within which the SoI must
operate, and the environmental influences within which the life cycle must be delivered. This gives the product
developer the freedom to make solution choices within that context and to ensure these choices fit into and do not
disrupt the wider context.
A product life cycle may need to recommend changes to enabling services such as recruitment and training of
people, or other infrastructure upgrades. Appropriate mechanisms for the implementation of these changes must be
part of the agreement between acquirer and supplier and be integrated into the product life cycle. A product life cycle
may also suggest changes in the wider context which would enhance the product’s ownership or use, but those
changes need to be negotiated and agreed with the relevant owners of the systems they relate to before they can be
added to the life cycle outputs.
A more detailed discussion of the system theory associated with product systems can be found in History of Systems
Science and an expansion of the application of systems engineering to service systems in the Product Systems
Engineering KA in Part 4.
Services and Service Systems

A service can be simply defined as an act of help or assistance, or as any outcome required by one or more users
which can be defined in terms of outcomes and quality of service without detail to how it is provided (e.g., transport,
communications, protection, data processing, etc.). Services are processes, performances, or experiences that one
person or organization does for the benefit of another, such as custom tailoring a suit; cooking a dinner to order;
driving a limousine; mounting a legal defense; setting a broken bone; teaching a class; or running a business’s
information technology infrastructure and applications. In all cases, service involves deployment of knowledge and
skills (competencies) that one person or organization has for the benefit of another (Lusch and Vargo 2006), often
done as a single, customized job. To be successful, service requires substantial input from the client and related
stakeholder, often referred to as the co-creation of value (Sampson 2001). For example, how can a steak be
customized unless the customer tells the waiter how the customer wants the steak prepared?
A service system (glossary) is an engineered system created and sustained by an organization that provides outcomes
for clients within an enterprise. A service system context contains the same kinds of system elements as a product
system context but allows greater freedom for what can be created or changed to deliver the required service.
A service system life cycle may deliver changes to how existing products and other services are deployed and used.
It may also identify the need to modify existing products or create new products, in which case it may initiate a
related product life cycle. In most cases the service developer will not have full freedom to change all aspects of the
service system context without some negotiation with related system element owners. In particular, people and
infrastructure are part of the service context and changes to how system elements are used to provide desired
outcomes are part of the service life cycle scope.
The description of product system context above might be viewed as a special case of a service system context in
which a specific product is created and integrated into a fixed service system by an organization and used by an
enterprise directly related to the organization to provide a capability.
In a general service system context, it is not necessary to deliver all hardware or software products to the service
provider. In some cases, some of the hardware, software or human elements may be owned by a third party who is
not responsible for the service directly but provides enabling outputs to a number of such services. In other cases, the
whole service may be provided by an organization that is completely separate to the enterprise which needs the
service. Nor is it necessary for the exact versions of products or enabling services to be defined and integrated prior
to service delivery. Some service system elements can be selected and integrated closer to the point of use. To allow
for this late configuration of a service system, it will contain some method of discovery by which appropriate
available elements can be found, and an overall service management element to implement and direct each instance
of the service system. The use of a service system approach gives greater freedom for acquirers in how they obtain
and support all of the capital equipment, software, people, etc. in order to obtain the capabilities needed to satisfy
users.
Services have been part of the language of systems engineering (SE) for many years, either as a way to describe the
context of a product-focused life cycle or to describe commercial arrangements for the 'outsourcing' of product
ownership and operation to others. The use of the term service system in more recent times is often associated with
software configurable and information intensive systems, i.e.,
...unique features that characterize services – namely, services, especially emerging services, are
information-driven, customer-centric, e-oriented, and productivity-focused. (Tien and Berg 2003, 13)
A more detailed discussion of the system theory associated with service systems can be found in History of Systems
Science and an expansion of the application of systems engineering to service systems in the Service Systems
Engineering KA in Part 4.
Enterprises and Enterprise Systems

An enterprise is one or more organizations or individuals sharing a definite mission, goals, and objectives to offer an
output such as a product or service.
An enterprise system consists of a purposeful combination (network) of interdependent resources (e.g., people;
processes; organizations; supporting technologies; and funding) that interact with each other (e.g., to coordinate
functions; share information; allocate funding; create workflows; and make decisions) and their environment(s), to
achieve business and operational goals through a complex web of interactions distributed across geography and time
(Rebovich and White 2011).
Both product and service systems require an enterprise system to create them and an enterprise to use the product
system to deliver services, either internally to the enterprise or externally to a broader community.
Enterprise systems are unique, compared to product and service systems, in that they are constantly evolving; they
rarely have detailed configuration controlled requirements; they typically have the goal of providing shareholder
value and customer satisfaction, which are constantly changing and are difficult to verify; and they exist in a context
(or environment) that is ill-defined and constantly changing.
While an enterprise system cannot be described using the general system context above, an enterprise may wish to
create a model of the capabilities and services it needs to achieve its strategy and goals. Such a model can be
extended to describe a baseline of service system and product system contexts related to its current capabilities, and
to proposed future capabilities. These are referred to as enterprise architectures or enterprise reference architectures.
A more detailed discussion of the system theory associated with service systems can be found in History of Systems
Science and an expansion of the application of systems engineering to service systems in the Enterprise Systems
Engineering KA in Part 4. The notion of enterprises and enterprise systems also permeates Part 5 Enabling Systems
Engineering.
Systems of Systems
A product, service or enterprise context can be defined as a hierarchy of system elements, with the additional
definition of which elements are part of a SoI solution, which form the related problem context and which influence
any life cycle associated with that context.
The additional concepts of Systems of Systems (SoS) or Federations of Systems (FoS) is used for some contexts. In
terms of the general description in Figure 1 above, this would apply to any life cycle context in which elements
within the SoI have independent life cycle relationships. This concept could apply to any of the life cycle contexts
above, although it is of particular relevance to the service and enterprise contexts.
It is important to understand that the term SoS is an addition to the general concept of system hierarchy that applies
to all systems. Maier examined the meaning of System of Systems in detail and used a characterization approach
which emphasizes the independent nature of the system elements (Maier 1998, 268). Maier describes both
independence in how a system element operates (e.g. an element in the SoI also has its own separate mission or is
part of another SoI) and in how an element is developed or sustained (e.g. an element is made available, modified or
configured by a different organization to the one responsible for the rest of the SoI).
There are advantages to being able to have elements shared across a number of engineered systems and to being able
to quickly create solutions to problems by combining existing engineered systems. As the technology to enable
integration of independent systems becomes more common, this SoS approach becomes a common aspect of many
SE life cycles.
Wherever system elements in an engineered system context have any degree of independence from the SoI life cycle,
this adds a further complexity; specifically, by constraining how the resulting engineered system can be changed or
controlled. This dimension of complexity affects the management and control aspects of the systems approach.
A more detailed discussion of the different system grouping taxonomies developed by systems science can be found
in Part 4 Applications of Systems Engineering and an expansion of the ways we deal with SoS complexity can be
found in the Systems of Systems KA in Part 4.
Applying Engineered System Contexts

From the discussions of product and service contexts above, it should be clear that they require similar systems
understanding to be successful and that the difference between them is more about the scope of life cycle choices and
the authority to make changes than about what kinds of systems they are.
These contexts are presented here as generalizations of the system engineering approach. All real projects may have
both product and service system dimensions to them. In this general view of engineered systems, there is always an
enterprise system directly interested in the service system context and either directly owning and operating any
product systems and enabling services or gaining access to them as needed. This enterprise system may be explicitly
involved in initiating and managing an engineering system life cycle or may be implicit in the shared ownership of a
problem situation. Any engineered system context may have aspects of the SoS independence discussed above. This
may be part of the context in the wider system or environment or it may be related to the choice of elements within
the SoI.
A real SE life cycle typically combines different aspects of these general contexts into a unique problem and solution
context and associated acquirer and supplier commercial relationships. These must be identified by that life cycle as
part of its SE activities. More details of these different life cycle contexts are given in part 2 and their applications to
SE practice are expanded upon in Part 4.
A good example of a general description of the above is given by Ring (1998), who defines the overall context as the
Problem Suppression System, describes a cycle by which an enterprise will explore its current needs, uses these to
identify one or more life cycle interventions and relevant organizations, then conduct and deliver those life cycles
and integrate their outputs into the PSS; the enterprise can then review the results in the environment and begin the
cycle again.
This general systems approach is described in part 2 and used as a focus to identify areas of foundational knowledge.
The current practices of SE described in the rest of the SEBoK reference these foundations as appropriate.
References
Works Cited
Aslaksen, E.W. 1996. The Changing Nature of Engineering. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory. New York, NY, USA: Brazillier.
Blanchard, B.S., and W.J. Fabrycky. 2005. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall International
Series in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Boulding, K. 1956. “General systems theory: The skeleton of science” Management Science, vol. 2, no. 3,
Aprilpp.197-208, 1956; reprinted in General Systems, Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, vol. 1,
1956.
Checkland, P.B. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Dictionary.com, s.v. "Taxonomy." Accessed 3 December 2014. Available at: http:/ / dictionary. reference. com/
browse/taxonomy.
Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. "Service Industry." Accessed 3 December 2014. Available at:http:/ / www. britannica.
com/EBchecked/topic/535980/service-industry.
DeRosa, J. K. 2005. “Enterprise systems engineering.” Air Force Association, Industry Day, Day 1, 4 August 2005,
Danvers, MA, USA.
Giachetti, R.E. 2009. Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architectures, and Methods. Boca Raton, FL, USA:
CRC Press.
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Lusch, R.F. and S. L. Vargo (Eds). 2006. The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and
Directions. Armonk, NY, USA: ME Sharpe Inc.
Magee, C.L. and O.L. de Weck. 2004. "Complex System classification". Proceedings of the 14th Annual
International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering, Toulouse, France, 20-24 June, 2004.
Maier, M. W. 1998. "Architecting principles for systems-of-systems". Systems Engineering, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 267-84.
Maier, M., and E. Rechtin. 2009. The Art of Systems Architecting, 3rd Ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Miller J. G. 1986. "Can Systems Theory Generate Testable Hypothesis?: From Talcott Parsons to Living Systems
Theory" Systems Research, vol. 3, pp. 73-84.
Paul, A.S. 1998. "Classifying systems." Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Council on Systems
Engineering International Symposium, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 26-30 July, 1998.
Ring, J., 1998. "A value seeking approach to the engineering of systems." Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. p. 2704-2708.
Sampson, S.E. 2001. Understanding Service Businesses. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley.
Tien, J.M. and D. Berg. 2003. "A case for service systems engineering." Journal of Systems Science and Systems
Wasson, C.S. 2006. System Analysis, Design and Development. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Primary References
Checkland, P. B. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Tien, J.M. and D. Berg. 2003. "A case for service systems engineering". Journal of Systems Science and Systems
None.

Cycles and the Cyclic Nature of Systems

Lead Author: Gary Smith, Contributing Authors: Olaf Brugman, Helene Finadori, John Kineman, Tom Marzolf,
George Mobus, Peter Tuddenham, Lynn Rasmussen, Hillary Sillitto, William Smith, Len Troncale, Tyler Volk
This article is part of The Nature of Systems knowledge area (KA). "Cycle" is one of many concepts within general
system theory that have been studied within systems science. A cycle is “a series of events that are regularly repeated
in the same order; or move in or follow a regularly repeated sequence of events” according to the Oxford English
Dictionary (2020). Cycles "define and make things. Equally things contain Cycles.” (Volk 1995) Mobus and Kalton
describe a cycle as a temporary pattern (2015). The Foundation for the Study of Cycles describe a cycle as, "A series
of events that is regularly repeated in the same order. The longer and more regular the series is repeated, the more
predictable it becomes, until it cannot reasonably be considered a coincidence.” (2020) “Circularity is the essence of
the early notion of feedback (circular causality). The notion of circularity is found in recursive computation (the use
of DO loops, for example)”. (Krippendorf 1984)
This article illustrates a General System Concept and its patterns of measurable instantiation. Additionally a number
of frameworks that incorporate cyclic behaviour are highlighted and the pattern of relationships between these
models, the phases of system emergence and the practice of system engineering are illustrated.
Introduction
Movement and evolution are fundamental in the dynamics of nature and thus cycles are evident, almost or even
absolutely, everywhere. (Wikipedia.org 2020)
Due to its generality, "cycle" is a key concept for Systemists, in our communication, in our thinking, and our
engagement with systems. The repetition of natural law and associated behaviour in mechanical systems, and other
examples of objective-subjective or system-context cycles are important in systems science. Cyclical phenomena are
studied in several different ways in different sciences, e.g. dynamics, biology, sociology, cosmology etc. Cyclical
dynamics are ubiquitous and thoroughly characterized:
• Cycles of system renewal in ecology (Allen & Hoekstra 1992; Gunderson 2013)
• Cycles of planning and intervention in social science (Sankaran et al. 2015)
• Business (Senge 2006)
• Cybernetics (Krippendorf 1984)

• Environmental management and decision support (Bell 2012)
• Coherence/decoherence or entanglement cycles in quantum mechanics (Hsiang & Ford 2009)
• Modelling relations in living systems (Rosen 1991a; b)
Cycles are evident in a number of Archetypes both natural and engineered as summarized in the following diagram:
Figure 1. Archetypes of Cycle. (Marzolf 2020) ISSS Cycle Contributions. https:/ / www. isss. org/ sebok-contribution/ Used with Permission
There are a number of well-established frameworks that incorporate cyclic phenomenon – Cynefin (situation),
Panarchy (social/ecological), OODA (situation), Spiral Model (engineer development), The Problem / Solution
System and Action Research (Plan, Act, Observe, Reflect). It is also evident in Peter Senge's first law of The Fifth
Discipline, “today's problems come from yesterday's solutions. The problem you inherited today is likely the result of
a series of solutions that seemed right at the time made by people that are probably no longer around.” (Senge 2006)
The work of Robert Rosen, taken forward by John Kineman on Relational Theory is working towards a
mathematical underpinning of the dual-aspect (system and context in cyclical relation) “Holon” and as a framework
for System Research (Kineman 2017).
Cycle is respected and instantiated in practice with the Lifecycle Management of software, physical artefacts,
services and enterprises when Applying the System Approach. Indeed, it is evident in the very structure of the
Scientific Method (iterative cycle) and underpins the application of technical management in the development of
systems and solutions. Systems Engineering itself is a cycle consisting of various project cycle stages (Forsberg,
Mooz and Cotterman 2005). Cycles of systems may affect other systems’ cycles or be affected by those other
systems’ cycles. Therefore, understanding the design, creation and maintenance of cycles and understanding how
they are affected by other systems’ cycles is a key tool for managing complexity.
Figure 2. One Spin of the Holon – the Four Phases of System Engineering. An integration based on multiple models: the System
Engineering Lifecycle, the Relational-Holon and Cynefin. (Adapted from prior work by Brigitte Daniel Allegro and Gary Robert
Smith). Used with permission.
Within a cycle, a recurrent pattern of Isomorphic processes has been postulated and systematically studied (Troncale,
1978). Below is a diagram of the first 4 of 80 detailed Integration to Diversification cycles from the Big Bang to our
societal cultural artefacts. Dr. Troncale has collected reprints from seven major conventional sciences that indicate
that cycling (or its subtypes) is contained in over 250 natural phenomena studied by the sciences. Having an
understanding of this pattern and the processes that result in the cyclic nature of systems may allow systemists to
better identify, categorize, design for, maintain and utilize lifecycle processes with greater understanding of the
underlying principles to guide our practice and consequently increase fidelity in application.
Figure 3. Postulated Recurrent Pattern of Isomorphic Processes, Functions and Features That Are Found across the Unbroken
Sequence of Origins. (Used with permission)
This diagram adapted from the work of Len Troncale ISSS Cycle Contributions, https:/ / www. isss. org/
sebok-contribution/ illustrates an observed recurrent waveform pattern that spans origins across the entire landscape
of systems. “All living (even non-living) entities of the same class exhibit the same phases (form) in their life cycle –
birth, maturation, death, dissolution” (Troncale 1978). Processes of “Affordances” – for new relationships, and
“Sustainment” were added as a result of collaborative discussion.
References
Works Cited
Allen, T.F.H. & Hoekstra, T.W. (1992) Toward a Unified Ecology. Columbia University Press.
Bell, S. (2012) DPSIR = A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the “Imagine” approach. European
Journal of Operational Research, 222, 350–360.
Daniel-Allegro B, Smith G.R. (2016). Exploring the branches of the system landscape, Les editions Allegro Brigitte
D. ISBN 978-2-9538007-1-5.
The Foundation for the Study of Cycles. 2020. "Cycle" https://cycles.org/
Gunderson, L.H. (2013) Panarchy Synopsis: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island
Press.
Hsiang, J.-T. & Ford, L.H. (2009) Decoherence and Recoherence in Model Quantum Systems. International Journal
of Modern Physics A, 24, 1705–1712.
Kineman, J.J. (2011) Relational Science: A synthesis. Axiomathes, 21, 393–437.
Krippendorff, K. (1984). An Epistemological Foundation for Communication. Journal of Communication 34(3),
21-36.
Oxford English Dictionary. 2020. s.v. "Cycle".
Rosen, R. (1991a) Beyond dynamical systems. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 14, 217–220.
Rosen, R. (1991b) Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. Columbia
University Press.
Sankaran, S., Dick, B., Passfield, R. & Swepson, P. (2015) Effective Change Management Using Action Learning
and Action Research. n/a, Lismore, NSW, Australia.
Senge, P.M. (2006) The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization, Revised&Updated.
Doubleday, New York.
Wikipedia.org. 2020. "List of Cycles". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cycles
Primary References
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: J.
Wiley & Sons.
Kineman, J.J. 2017. Chapter 2, Systems Research Framework, A Guide to Systems Research. Springer.
Mobus, G.E and M.C. Kalton. 2015. Principles of System Science. Springer.
Troncale, L.R. 1978. Nature’s Enduring Patterns. California State Polytechnic University.
Volk, T. 1996. Metapatterns. Columbia University Press.
None.
Videos
Video presentations on the unbroken sequence of origins by Len Troncale and on Cycles by Tyler Volk and Gary
Smith are available ISSS Cycle Contributions. https://www.isss.org/sebok-contribution/

134
Knowledge Area: Systems Science
Systems Science
Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Gary Smith
This knowledge area (KA) provides a guide to some of the major developments in systems science, which is an
interdisciplinary field of science that studies the nature of complex systems in nature, society, and engineering.
This is part of the wider systems knowledge which can help to provide a common language and intellectual
foundation, and make practical systems concepts, principles, patterns and tools accessible to systems engineering
(SE) as discussed in the Introduction to Part 2.
Topics
• History of Systems Science
• The origins of Systems Approaches
• Complexity
• Emergence
Introduction
Systems science brings together research into all aspects of systems with the goal of identifying, exploring, and
understanding patterns of complexity and emergence which cross disciplinary fields and areas of application. It seeks
to develop interdisciplinary foundations which can form the basis of theories applicable to all types of systems,
independent of element type or application; additionally, it could form the foundations of a meta-discipline unifying
traditional scientific specialisms.
The History of Systems Science article describes some of the important multidisciplinary fields of research of which
systems science is composed.
A second article presents and contrasts the underlying theories and origins behind some of the classic system
approaches taken in applying systems science to real problems.
People who think and act in a systems way are essential to the success of both research and practice. Successful
systems research will not only apply systems thinking to the topic being researched but should also consider a
systems thinking approach to the way the research is planned and conducted. It would also be of benefit to have
people involved in research who have, at a minimum, an awareness of system practice and ideally are involved in
practical applications of the theories they develop.
Systems Science 135
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, Revised ed. New York,
NY, USA: Braziller.
Flood, R.L. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable. London, UK: Routledge.
None.

History of Systems Science

Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Scott Jackson, Janet Singer, Duane Hybertson
This article is part of the Systems Science knowledge area (KA). It describes some of the important multidisciplinary
fields of research comprising systems science in historical context.
Systems science is an integrative discipline which brings together ideas from a wide range of sources which share a
common systems theme. Some fundamental concepts now used in systems science have been present in other
disciplines for many centuries, while equally fundamental concepts have independently emerged as recently as 40
years ago (Flood and Carson 1993).
The “Systems Problem”

Questions about the nature of systems, organization, and complexity are not specific to the modern age. As
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) pioneer and former International Society for System
Sciences (ISSS) President John Warfield put it, “Virtually every important concept that backs up the key ideas
emergent in systems literature is found in ancient literature and in the centuries that follow.” (Warfield 2006.) It was
not until around the middle of the 20th Century, however, that there was a growing sense of a need for, and
possibility of a scientific approach to problems of organization and complexity in a “science of systems” per se.
The explosion of knowledge in the natural and physical sciences during the 18th and 19th centuries had made the
creation of specialist disciplines inevitable: in order for science to advance, there was a need for scientists to become
expert in a narrow field of study. The creation of educational structures to pass on this knowledge to the next
generation of specialists perpetuated the fragmentation of knowledge (M’Pherson 1973).
This increasing specialization of knowledge and education proved to be a strength rather than a weakness for
problems which were suited to the prevailing scientific methods of experimental isolation and analytic reduction.
However, there were areas of both basic and applied science that were not adequately served by those methods alone.
The systems movement has its roots in two such areas of science: the biological-social sciences, and a
mathematical-managerial base stemming first from cybernetics and operations research, and later from
organizational theory.
Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy was one of the first to argue for and develop a broadly applicable scientific
research approach based on Open System Theory (Bertalanffy 1950). He explained the scientific need for systems
research in terms of the limitations of analytical procedures in science.
These limitations, often expressed as emergent evolution or "the whole is more than a sum of its parts,” are based on
the idea that an entity can be resolved into and reconstituted from its parts, either material or conceptual:
This is the basic principle of "classical" science, which can be circumscribed in different ways:
resolution into isolable causal trains or seeking for "atomic" units in the various fields of science, etc.
He stated that while the progress of "classical" science has shown that these principles, first enunciated by Galileo
and Descartes, are highly successful in a wide realm of phenomena, but two conditions are required for these
principles to apply:
The first is that interactions between "parts" be non-existent or weak enough to be neglected for certain
research purposes. Only under this condition, can the parts be "worked out," actually, logically, and
mathematically, and then be "put together." The second condition is that the relations describing the
behavior of parts be linear; only then is the condition of summativity given, i.e., an equation describing
the behavior of the total is of the same form as the equations describing the behavior of the parts.
These conditions are not fulfilled in the entities called systems, i.e. consisting of parts "in interaction"
and description by nonlinear mathematics. These system entities describe many real world situations:
populations, eco systems, organizations and complex man made technologies. The methodological
problem of systems theory is to provide for problems beyond the analytical-summative ones of classical
science. (Bertalanffy 1968, 18-19)
Bertalanffy also cited a similar argument by mathematician and co-founder of information theory Warren Weaver in
a 1948 American Scientist article on “Science and Complexity.” Weaver had served as Chief of the Applied
Mathematics Panel at the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development during WWII. Based on those
experiences, he proposed an agenda for what he termed a new “science of problems of organized complexity.”
Weaver explained how the mathematical methods which had led to great successes of science to date were limited to
problems where appropriate simplifying assumptions could be made. What he termed “problems of simplicity” could
be adequately addressed by the mathematics of mechanics, while “problems of disorganized complexity” could be
successfully addressed by the mathematics of statistical mechanics. But with other problems, making the simplifying
assumptions in order to use the methods would not lead to helpful solutions. Weaver placed in this category
problems such as, how the genetic constitution of an organism expresses itself in the characteristics of the adult, and
to what extent it is safe to rely on the free interplay of market forces if one wants to avoid wide swings from
prosperity to depression. He noted that these were complex problems which involved “analyzing systems which are
organic wholes, with their parts in close interrelation.”
These problems-and a wide range of similar problems in the biological, medical, psychological,
economic, and political sciences-are just too complicated to yield to the old nineteenth century
techniques which were so dramatically successful on two-, three-, or four-variable problems of
simplicity. These new problems, moreover, cannot be handled with the statistical techniques so effective
in describing average behavior in problems of disorganized complexity [problems with elements
exhibiting random or unpredictable behavior].
These new critical global problems require science to make a third great advance,
An advance that must be even greater than the nineteenth-century conquest of problems of simplicity or
the twentieth-century victory over problems of disorganized complexity. Science must, over the next 50
years, learn to deal with these problems of organized complexity [problems for which complexity
“emerges” from the coordinated interaction between its parts]. (Weaver 1948.)
Weaver identified two grounds for optimism in taking on this great challenge: 1.) developments in mathematical
modeling and digital simulation, and 2.) the success during WWII of the “mixed team” approach of operations
analysis, where individuals from across disciplines brought their skills and insights together to solve critical,
complex problems.
The importance of modeling and simulation and the importance of working across disciplinary boundaries have been
the key recurring themes in development of this “third way” science for systems problems of organized complexity.
The Development of Systems Research

The following overview of the evolution of systems science is broadly chronological, but also follows the evolution
of different paradigms in system theory.
Open Systems and General Systems Theory

General system theory (GST) attempts to formulate principles relevant to all open systems (Bertalanffy 1968). GST
is based on the idea that correspondence relationships (homologies) exist between systems from different disciplines.
Thus, knowledge about one system should allow us to reason about other systems. Many of the generic system
concepts come from the investigation of GST.
In 1954, Bertalanffy co-founded, along with Kenneth Boulding (economist), Ralph Gerard (physiologist) and Anatol
Rapoport (mathematician), the Society for General System Theory (renamed in 1956 to the Society for General
Systems Research, and in 1988 to the International Society for the Systems Sciences).
The initial purpose of the society was "to encourage the development of theoretical systems which are applicable to
more than one of the traditional departments of knowledge ... and promote the unity of science through improving
the communication among specialists." (Bertalanffy 1968.)
This group is considered by many to be the founders of System Age Thinking (Flood 1999).
Cybernetics
Cybernetics was defined by Wiener, Ashby and others as the study and modeling of communication, regulation, and
control in systems (Ashby 1956; Wiener 1948). Cybernetics studies the flow of information through a system and
how information is used by the system to control itself through feedback mechanisms. Early work in cybernetics in
the 1940s was applied to electronic and mechanical networks, and was one of the disciplines used in the formation of
early systems theory. It has since been used as a set of founding principles for all of the significant system
disciplines.
Some of the key concepts of feedback and control from Cybernetics are expanded in the Concepts of Systems
Thinking article.
Operations Research
Operations Research (OR) considers the use of technology by an organization. It is based on the use of mathematical
modeling and statistical analysis to optimize decisions on the deployment of the resources under an organization's
control. An interdisciplinary approach based on scientific methods, OR arose from military planning techniques
developed during World War II.
Operations Research and Management Science (ORMS) was formalized in 1950 by Ackoff and Churchman
applying the ideas and techniques of OR to organizations and organizational decisions (Churchman et. al. 1950).
Systems Analysis
Systems analysis was developed by RAND Corporation in 1948. It borrowed from and extended OR, including using
black boxes and feedback loops from cybernetics to construct block diagrams and flow graphs. In 1961, the Kennedy
Administration decreed that systems analysis techniques should be used throughout the government to provide a
quantitative basis for broad decision-making problems, combining OR with cost analysis (Ryan 2008).
Systems Dynamics
Systems dynamics (SD) uses some of the ideas of cybernetics to consider the behavior of systems as a whole in their
environment. SD was developed by Jay Forrester in the 1960’s (Forrester 1961). He was interested in modeling the
dynamic behavior of systems such as populations in cities and industrial supply chains. See Systems Approaches for
more details.
SD is also used by Senge (1990) in his influential book The Fifth Discipline. This book advocates a systems thinking
approach to organization and also makes extensive use of SD notions of feedback and control.
Organizational Cybernetics
Stafford Beer was one of the first to take a cybernetics approach to organizations (Beer 1959). For Beer, the
techniques of ORMS are best applied in the context of an understanding of the whole system. Beer also developed a
Viable Systems Model (Beer 1979), which encapsulates the effective organization needed for a system to be viable
(to survive and adapt in its environment).
Works in cybernetics and ORMS consider the mechanism for communication and control in complex systems, and
particularly in organizations and management sciences. They provide useful approaches for dealing with operational
and tactical problems within a system, but do not allow consideration of more strategic organizational problems
(Flood 1999).
Hard and Soft Systems Thinking

Action research is an approach, first described by Kurt Lewin, as a reflective process of progressive problem solving
in which reflection on action leads to a deeper understanding of what is going on and to further investigation (Lewin
1958).
Peter Checkland’s action research program in the 1980‘s led to an Interpretative-Based Systemic Theory which seeks
to understand organizations by not only observing the actions of people, but also by building understandings of the
cultural context, intentions and perceptions of the individuals involved. Checkland, himself starting from a systems
engineering (SE) perspective, successively observed the problems in applying a SE approach to the more fuzzy,
ill-defined problems found in the social and political arenas (Checkland 1978). Thus, he introduced a distinction
between hard systems and soft systems - see also Systems Approaches.
Hard systems views of the world are characterized by the ability to define purposes, goals, and missions that can be
addressed via engineering methodologies in an attempt to, in some sense, “optimize” a solution.
In hard system approaches, the problems may be complex and difficult but they are known and can be fully
expressed by the investigator. Such problems can be solved by selecting from the best available solutions (possibly
with some modification or integration to create an optimum solution). In this context, the term "systems" is used to
describe real world things; a solution system is selected, created and then deployed to solve the problem.
Soft systems views of the world are characterized by complex, problematical, and often mysterious phenomena for
which concrete goals cannot be established and which require learning in order to make improvement. Such systems
are not limited to the social and political arenas and also exist within and amongst enterprises where complex, often
ill-defined patterns of behavior are observed that are limiting the enterprise's ability to improve.
Soft system approaches reject the idea of a single problem and consider problematic situations in which different
people will perceive different issues depending upon their own viewpoint and experience. These problematic
situations are not solved but managed through interventions which seek to reduce "discomfort" among the
participants. The term system is used to describe systems of ideas, conceptual systems which guide our
understanding of the situation, or help in the selection of intervention strategies.
These three ideas of “problem vs. problematic situation,” “solution vs. discomfort reduction,” and “the system vs.
systems understanding” encapsulate the differences between hard and soft approaches (Flood and Carson 1993).
Critical Systems Thinking

The development of a range of hard and soft methods naturally leads to the question of which method to apply in
what circumstances (Jackson 1989). Critical systems thinking (CST), or critical management science (Jackson
1985), attempts to deal with this question.
The word critical is used in two ways. Firstly, critical thinking considers the limits of knowledge and investigates
the limits and assumptions of hard and soft systems, as discussed in the above sections. The second aspect of critical
thinking considers the ethical, political and coercive dimension and the role of system thinking in society; see also
Systems Approaches.
Service Science and Service Systems Engineering

The world economies have transitioned over the past few decades from manufacturing economies that provide
goods, to service based economies. Harry Katzan defined the newly emerging field of service science: "Service
science is defined as the application of scientific, engineering, and management competencies that a service-provider
organization performs that creates value for the benefit of the client or customer" (Katzan 2008, vii).
The disciplines of service science and service engineering have developed to support this expansion and are built on
principles of systems thinking but applied to the development and delivery of service systems.
Service Systems Engineering is described more fully in the Service Systems Engineering KA in Part 4 of the
SEBoK.
References
Works Cited
Ackoff, R.L. 1971. "Towards a system of systems concepts," Management Science, vol. 17, no. 11.
Ashby, W. R. 1956. Introduction to Cybernetics. London, UK: Methuen.
Beer, S. 1959. Cybernetics and Management. London, UK: English Universities; New York: Wiley and Sons.
Beer, S. 1979. The Heart of the Enterprise. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1950. "The theory of open systems in physics and biology," Science, New Series, vol. 111, no.
2872, Jan 13, pp. 23-29.
NY, USA: Braziller.
Checkland, P. 1978. "The origins and nature of “hard” systems thinking," Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, vol.
5, no. 2, pp. 99-110.
Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Churchman, C.W. 1968. The Systems Approach. New York, NY, USA: Dell Publishing.
Churchman, C.W., R.L. Ackoff. and E.L. Arnoff. 1950. Introduction to Operations Research. New York, NY, USA:
Wiley and Sons.
Flood, R.L. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable. London, UK: Routledge.
Flood, R.L. and E.R. Carson. 1993. Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of
Systems Science, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
Forrester, J. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Jackson, M. 1985. "Social systems theory and practice: The need for a critical approach," International Journal of
General Systems, vol. 10, pp. 135-151.
Jackson, M. 1989. "Which systems methodology when? Initial results from a research program." In: R. Flood, M.
Jackson and P. Keys (eds). Systems Prospects: The Next Ten Years of Systems Research. New York, NY, USA:
Plenum.
Jackson, M. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creating Holisms for Managers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Katzan, H. 2008. Service Science. Bloomington, IN, USA: iUniverse Books.
Lewin, K. 1958. Group Decision and Social Change. New York, NY, USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. p. 201.
M’Pherson, P, K. 1974. "A perspective on systems science and systems philosophy," Futures, vol. 6, no. 3, June
1974, pp. 219-239.
Miller, J.G. 1986. "Can systems theory generate testable hypothesis?: From Talcott Parsons to living systems
theory," Systems Research, vol. 3, pp. 73-84.
Ryan, A. 2008. “What is a systems approach?” Journal of Nonlinear Science.
Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA:
Doubleday Business.
Weaver, W. 1948. “Science and complexity,” American Scientist, vol. 36, pp. 536-544.
Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Paris, France:
Hermann & Cie Editeurs; Cambridge, MA, USA: The Technology Press; New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Primary References
NY, USA: Braziller.
Chang, C.M., 2010. Service Systems Management and Engineering: Creating Strategic Differentiation and
Operational Excellence. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Flood, R. L. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable. London, UK: Routledge.
Ackoff, R.L. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.
Bowler, D.T. 1981. General Systems Thinking: Its Scope and Applicability. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Boulding, K.E. 1996. The World as a Total System. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Laszlo, E. (ed). 1972. The Relevance of General Systems Theory. New York, NY, USA: George Brazillier.
Skyttner, L. 1996. General Systems Theory - An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.
Warfield, J.N. 2006. An Introduction to Systems Science. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte Ltd. Chang,
C.M. 2010. Service Systems Management and Engineering: Creating Strategic Differentiation and Operational
Excellence. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Lusch, R.F. and S. L. Vargo (Eds). 2006. The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and
Directions. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe Inc.
Maglio P., S. Srinivasan, J.T. Kreulen, and J. Spohrer. 2006. “Service Systems, Service Scientists, SSME, and
Innovation," Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, no. 7, July.
Popper, K. R. 1979. Objective Knowledge, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Salvendy, G. and W. Karwowski (eds.). 2010. Introduction to Service Engineering. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley
and Sons.
Sampson, S.E. 2001. Understanding Service Businesses. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley.
Spohrer, J. and P. P. Maglio. 2008. "The emergence of service science: Toward systematic service innovations to
accelerate co-creation of value," Production and Operations Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 238-246, cited by
Spohrer, J. and P. Maglio. 2010. "Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet," in Introduction to Service
Engineering. Ed. G Salvendy and W Karwowski. pp. 3-30. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tien, J.M. and D. Berg. 2003. "A case for service systems engineering," Journal of Systems Science and Systems

Systems Approaches
This article is part of the Systems Science knowledge area (KA). It presents issues in the comparison and analysis of
classic systems approaches developed by the systems science community. Some of these ideas contribute to basic
theory and methods that are used in systems thinking discussed in the Systems Thinking KA.
What is a Systems Approach?

In Bertalanffy's introduction to his 1968 book General System Theory (GST), he characterizes a systems approach
as:
A certain objective is given; to find ways and means for its realization requires the system specialist (or
team of specialists) to consider alternative solutions and to choose those promising optimization at
maximum efficiency and minimum cost in a tremendously complex network of interactions. (Bertalanffy
1968, 4)
He goes on to list as possible elements of a systems approach: “classical” systems theory (differential equations),
computerization and simulation, compartment theory, set theory, graph theory, net theory, cybernetics, information
theory, theory of automata, game theory, decision theory, queuing theory, and models in ordinary language.
This description is similar to what Warren Weaver identified as the methods used successfully by “mixed teams”
during World War II (WWII) on “problems of organized complexity”. However, some conditions that had
contributed to success during wartime did not hold after the war, such as a clear focus on well-defined common
goals that motivated participants to work across disciplinary boundaries.
By the early 1970’s, there was growing disillusionment with the promise that a systems approach would provide easy
solutions for all complex problems. There was particular criticism from some, including pioneers of Operations
Research and Management Science (ORMS) like Ackoff and Churchman, that reliance on rote mathematical
methods to identify optimal solutions among fixed alternatives had become just as inflexible and unimaginative an
approach to complex problems as whatever it had replaced. Interest grew in examining and comparing methods and
methodologies to better understand what could help ensure the best thinking and learning in terms of systems in
systems approaches to practice.
Issues in Systems Approaches

A systems approach is strongly associated with systems thinking and how it helps to guide systems practice. In What
is Systems Thinking? the key ideas of considering a system holistically, setting a boundary for a problem/solution of
interest, and considering the resulting system-of-interest from outside its boundary are identified (Churchman 1979;
Senge 2006).
A systems approach can view a system as a “holon” – an entity that is itself a “whole system” that interacts with a
mosaic of other holons in its wider environment (Hybertson 2009), while also being made up of interacting parts. We
can use this model recursively – each part of the system may be a system in its own right, and can itself be viewed
both as an entity as seen from outside, and as a set of interacting parts. This model also applies in upwards recursion,
so the original “system-of-interest” is an interacting part of one or more wider systems.
This means that an important skill in a systems approach is to identify the “natural holons” in the problem situation
and solution systems and to make the partitioning of responsibilities match the “natural holons,” so as to minimize
the coupling between parallel activities when applying a solution. This is the “cohesive/loose coupling” heuristic that
has been around for a long time in many design disciplines.
Another consequence of the holistic nature of a systems approach is that it considers not only a problem situation and
a solution system but also the system created and deployed to apply one to the other. A systems approach must
consider both the boundary of the system of concern as well as the boundary of the system inquiry (or model). Real
systems are always open, i.e., they interact with their environment or supersystem(s). On the other hand, real models
are always “closed” due to resource constraints — a fixed boundary of consideration must be set. Thus, there is an
ongoing negotiation to relate the two in systems practice and the judgment to do so is greatly helped by an
appreciation of the difference between them.
Thus, a systems approach can be characterized by how it considers problems, solutions and the problem resolution
process itself:
• Consider problems holistically, setting problem boundaries though understanding of natural system relationships
and trying to avoid unwanted consequences.
• Create solutions based on sound system principles, in particular creating system structures which reduce
organized complexity and unwanted emergent properties.
• Use understanding, judgment and models in both problem understanding and solution creation, while
understanding the limitations of such views and models.
Systems Methodologies
One topic that has received significant attention in the systems science community is the analysis and comparison of
methodologies which implement a systems approach. A methodology is a body of tools, procedures, and methods
applied to a problem situation, ideally derived from a theoretical framework. These describe structured approaches to
problem understanding and/or resolution, making use of some of the concepts of systems thinking. These
methodologies are generally associated with a particular system paradigm or way of thinking, which has a strong
influence on the three aspects of a systems approach described above.
The most widely used groups of methodologies are as follows (see also History of Systems Science):
• Hard system methodologies (Checkland 1978) set out to select an efficient means to achieve a predefined and
agreed end.
• Soft system methodologies (Checkland 1999) are interactive and participatory approaches to assist groups of
diverse participants to alleviate a complex, problematic situation of common interest.
• Critical systems thinking methodologies (Jackson 1985) attempt to provide a framework in which appropriate
hard and soft methods can be applied as appropriate to the situation under investigation.
Systems Dynamics
Systems dynamics (SD) uses some of the ideas of cybernetics to consider the behavior of systems as a whole in their
environment. SD was developed by Jay Forrester in the 1960’s. He was interested in modeling the dynamic behavior
of systems such as populations in cities, or industrial supply chains.
System dynamics (Forrester 1961) is an approach to understanding the behavior of complex systems over time. It
deals with internal feedback loops and time delays that affect the behavior of the entire system. The main elements
of SD are:
• The understanding of the dynamic interactions in a problem or solution as a system of feedback loops, modeled
using a Causal Loop Diagram.
• Quantitative modeling of system performance as an accumulation of stocks (any entity or property which varies
over time) and flows (representations of the rate of change of a stock).
• The creation of dynamic simulations, exploring how the value of key parameters change over time. A wide range
of software tools are available to support this.
These elements help describe how even seemingly simple systems display baffling non-linearity.
Hard Systems Methodologies

Checkland (1975) classifies hard system (glossary) methodologies, which set out to select an efficient means to
achieve a predefined end, under the following headings:
• Systems Analysis - the systematic appraisal of the costs and other implications of meeting a defined requirement
in various ways.
• Systems Engineering (SE) - the set of activities that together lead to the creation of a complex man-made entity
and/or the procedures and information flows associated with its operation.
Operational Research is also considered a hard system approach, closely related to the systems analysis approach
developed by the Rand Corporation, in which solutions are known but the best combinations of these solutions must
be found. There is some debate as to whether system dynamics is a hard approach, which is used to assess the
objective behavior of real situations. Many applications of SD have focused on the system, however it can and has
also been used as part of a soft approach including the modeling of subjective perceptions (Lane 2000).
SE allows for the creation of new solution systems, based upon available technologies. This hard view of SE as a
solution focused approach applied to large, complex and technology focused solutions, is exemplified by (Jenkins
1969; Hall 1962) and early defense and aerospace standards.
It should be noted that historically the SE discipline was primarily aimed at developing, modifying or supporting
hard systems. More recent developments in SE have incorporated problem focused thinking and agile solution
approaches. It is this view of SE that is described in the SEBoK.
All of these hard approaches can use systems thinking to ensure complete and viable solutions are created and/or as
part of the solution optimization process. These approaches are appropriate to unitary problems, but not when the
problem situation or solution technologies are unclear.
Soft Systems and Problem Structuring Methods

Problem Structuring Methods (PSM) are interactive and participatory approaches to assist groups of diverse
participants to alleviate a complex, problematic situation of common interest. Typically, the hardest element of the
situation is framing the issues which constitute the problem (Minger and Resenhead 2004).
PSM use systems and systems thinking as an abstract framework for investigation, rather than a structure for creating
solutions. Systems descriptions are used to understand the current situation and describe an idealized future.
Interventions directly in the current organization to move towards the idea recognize that the assumptions and mental
models of the participants are an important obstruction to change, and that these differing views cannot be dismissed
but instead must form part of the intervention approach.
Peter Checkland’s action research program (see Systems Science) in the 1980‘s forms the basis of work by
Checkland, Wilson and others in the development of soft systems methodology (SSM) (Checkland 1999; Wilson
2001). SSM formalizes the idea of a soft approach using systemic thinking to expose the issues in a problem
situation and guide interventions to reduce them. SSM provides a framework of ideas and models to help guide
participants through this systemic thinking.
Other PSM approaches include interactive planning approach (Ackoff 1981), social systems design (Churchman
1968), and strategic assumptions surfacing and testing (Mason and Mitroff 1981).
SSM and other soft approaches use systems thinking to ensure problem situations are fully explored and resolved.
These approaches are appropriate to pluralist problems. Critics of SSM suggest that it does not consider the process
of intervention, and in particular how differences in power between individuals and social groups impact the
effectiveness of interventions.
Critical Systems Thinking and Multi-Methodology

The development of a range of hard and soft methods naturally leads to the question of which method to apply in
what set of circumstances (Jackson 1989). Critical systems thinking (CST) or Critical Management Science
(Jackson 1985) attempts to deal with this question.
The word critical is used in two ways. Firstly, critical thinking considers the limits of knowledge and investigates the
limits and assumptions of hard and soft systems, as discussed in the above sections. From this comes frameworks
and meta-methodology that establish when to apply different methods such as total systems intervention (TSI)
(Flood and Jackson 1991). Critical, “pluralist,” or “pragmatic” multi-methodology approaches take this aspect of
critical thinking one stage further to recognize the value of combining techniques from several hard, soft , or custom
methods as needed (Mingers and Gill 1997). Many in the systems science community believe that the
multi-methodology approach has been accepted as the de facto systems approach and that the challenges now are in
refining tools and methods to support it.
Churchman (1979) and others have also considered broader ethics, political and social questions related to
management science, with regards to the relative power and responsibility of the participants in system interventions.
The second aspect of critical thinking considers the ethical, political, and coercive dimension in Jackson's System of
Systems Methodologies (SOSM) framework (Jackson 2003) and the role of system thinking in society.
Selecting Systems Methodologies

[1]
Jackson proposes a frame for considering which approach should be applied (please see Jackson's Framework ).
In Jackson's framework, the following definitions apply to the participants involved in solving the problem:
• Unitary: A problem situation in which participants "have similar values, beliefs and interests. They share common
purposes and are all involved, in one way or another, in decision-making about how to realize their agreed
objectives." (Jackson 2003, 19)
• Pluralist: A problem situation involving participants in which "although their basic interests are compatible, they
do not share the same values and beliefs. Space needs to be made available within which debate, disagreement,
even conflict, can take place. If this is done, and all feel they have been involved in decision-making, then
accommodations and compromises can be found. Participants will come to agree, at least temporarily, on
productive ways forward and will act accordingly." (Jackson 2003, 19)
• Coercive: A problem situation in which the participants "have few interests in common and, if free to express
them, would hold conflicting values and beliefs. Compromise is not possible and so no agreed objectives direct
action. Decisions are taken on the basis of who has most power and various forms of coercion employed to ensure
adherence to commands." (Jackson 2003, 19)
Jackson's framework suggests that for simple and complex systems with unitary participants, hard and dynamic
systems thinking applies, respectively. For simple and complex systems with pluralist participants, soft systems
thinking applies. For simple and complex systems with coercive participants, emancipatory and postmodernist
system thinking applies, respectively. These thinking approaches consider all attempts to look for system solutions to
be temporary and ineffective in situations where the power of individuals and groups of people dominate any system
structures we create. They advocate an approach which encourages diversity, free-thinking and creativity of
individuals and in the organization's structures. Thus, modern systems thinking has the breadth needed to deal with a
broad range of complex problems and solutions.
These ideas sit at the extreme of system thinking as a tool for challenging assumptions and stimulating innovative
solutions in problem solving. Jackson (2003) identifies the work of some authors who have included these ideas into
their systems approach.
References
Works Cited
Ackoff, R.L. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.
Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York, NY, USA:
George Braziller, Inc.
Checkland, P. 1978. "The origins and nature of “hard” systems thinking," Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, vol.
5, no. 2, pp. 99-110.
Churchman, C.W. 1968. The Systems Approach. New York, NY, USA: Dell Publishing.
Churchman, C. W.. 1979. The Systems Approach and Its Enemies. New York: Basic Books.
Flood, R. and M. Jackson. 1991. Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. London, UK: Wiley.
Hall, A.D. 1962. A Methodology for Systems Engineering. New York, NY, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hybertson, D, 2009. Model-Oriented Systems Engineering Science: A Unifying Framework for Traditional and
Complex Systems. Series in Complex and Enterprise Systems Engineering. Boston, MA, USA: Auerbach
Publications.
Jackson, M. 1989. "Which systems methodology when? Initial results from a research program," in R Flood, M
Jackson and P Keys (eds). Systems Prospects: The Next Ten Years of Systems Research. New York, NY, USA:
Plenum.
Jenkins, G.M. 1969. "The Systems Approach." In J. Beishon and G. Peters (eds.), Systems Behavior, 2nd ed. New
York, NY, USA: Harper and Row.
Lane, D. 2000. “Should system dynamics be described as a `hard' or `deterministic' systems approach?” Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 17, pp. 3–22.
Mason, R.O. and I.I. Mitroff. 1981. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Case and Techniques.
New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.
Mingers, J. and A. Gill. 1997. Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science
Methodologies. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Senge, P.M. 1990, 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York,
Doubleday/Currency.
Wilson, B. 2001. Soft Systems Methodology—Conceptual Model Building and Its Contribution. New York, NY,
USA: J.H.Wiley.
Primary References
Jackson, M.C. and P. Keys. 1984. "Towards a system of systems methodologies," The Journal of the Operational
Research Society, vol. 35, no. 6, June,, pp. 473-486.
Mingers, J. and J. Rosenhead. 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operations
Research, vol. 152, no. 3, February, pp. 530-554. Sterman, J.D. 2001. "System dynamics modeling: Tools for
learning in a complex world," California Management Review, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 8–25.

References
[1] http:/ / www. systemswiki. org/ index. php?title=System_of_Systems_Methodologies_(SOSM)
Complexity
Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Hillary Sillitto, Sarah Sheard
This article is part of the Systems Science knowledge area (KA). It gives the background of and an indication of
current thinking on complexity and how it influences systems engineering (SE) practice.
Complexity is one of the most important and difficult to define system concepts. Is a system's complexity in the eye
of the beholder, or is there inherent complexity in how systems are organized? Is there a single definitive definition
of complexity and, if so, how can it be assessed and measured? This topic will discuss how these ideas relate to the
general definitions of a system given in What is a System?, and in particular to the different engineered system
contexts. This article is closely related to the emergence topic that follows it.
Defining System Complexity

Complexity has been considered by a number of authors from various perspectives; some of the discussions of
complexity relevant to systems are described in the final section of this article. Sheard and Mostashari (Sheard and
Mostashari 2011) synthesize many of these ideas to categorize complexity as follows:
1. Structural Complexity looks at the system elements and relationships. In particular, structural complexity looks
at how many different ways system elements can be combined. Thus, it is related to the potential for the system to
adapt to external needs.
2. Dynamic Complexity considers the complexity which can be observed when systems are used to perform
particular tasks in an environment. There is a time element to dynamic complexity. The ways in which systems
interact in the short term is directly related to system behavior; the longer-term effects of using systems in an
environment is related to system evolution.
3. Socio-Political Complexity considers the effect of individuals or groups of people on complexity. People-related
complexity has two aspects. One is related to the perception of a situation as complex or not complex, due to
Complexity 148
multiple stakeholder viewpoints within a system context and social or cultural biases which add to the wider
influences on a system context. The other involves either the “irrational” behavior of an individual or the swarm
behavior of many people behaving individually in ways that make sense; however, the emergent behavior is
unpredicted and perhaps counterproductive. This latter type is based on the interactions of the people according to
their various interrelationships and is often graphed using systems dynamics formalisms.
Thus, complexity is a measure of how difficult it is to understand how a system will behave or to predict the
consequences of changing it. It occurs when there is no simple relationship between what an individual element does
and what the system as a whole will do, and when the system includes some element of adaptation or problem
solving to achieve its goals in different situations. It can be affected by objective attributes of a system such as by the
number, types of and diversity of system elements and relationships, or by the subjective perceptions of system
observers due to their experience, knowledge, training, or other sociopolitical considerations.
This view of complex systems provides insight into the kind of system for which systems thinking and a systems
approach is essential.
Complexity and Engineered Systems

The different perspectives on complexity are not independent when considered across a systems context. The
structural complexity of a system-of-interest (SoI) may be related to dynamic complexity when the SoI also
functions as part of a wider system in different problem scenarios. People are involved in most system contexts, as
part of the problem situation, as system elements and part of the operating environment. The human activity systems
which we create to identify, design, build and support an engineered system and the wider social and business
systems in which they sit are also likely to be complex and affect the complexity of the systems they produce and
use.
Sheard and Mostashari (2011) show the ways different views of complexity map onto product system, service
system and enterprise system contexts, as well as to associated development and sustainment systems and project
organizations. Ordered systems occur as system components and are the subject of traditional engineering. It is
important to understand the behaviors of such systems when using them in a complex system. One might also need
to consider both truly random or chaotic natural or social systems as part of the context of an engineered system. The
main focus for systems approaches is organized complexity (see below). This kind of complexity cannot be dealt
with by traditional analysis techniques, nor can it be totally removed by the way we design or use solutions. A
systems approach must be able to recognize and deal with such complexity across the life of the systems with which
it interacts.
Sillitto (2014) considers the link between the types of system complexity and system architecture. The ability to
understand, manage and respond to both objective and subjective complexity in the problem situation, the systems
we develop or the systems we use to develop and sustain them is a key component of the Systems Approach Applied
to Engineered Systems and hence to the practice of systems engineering.
Origins and Characteristics of Complexity

This section describes some of the prevailing ideas on complexity. Various authors have used different language to
express these ideas. While a number of common threads can be seen, some of the ideas take different viewpoints and
may be contradictory in nature.
One of the most widely used definitions of complexity is the degree of difficulty in predicting the properties of a
system if the properties of the system's parts are given (generally attributed to Weaver). This, in turn, is related to the
number of elements and connections between them. Weaver (Weaver 1948) relates complexity to types of elements
and how they interact. He describes simplicity as problems with a finite number of variables and interaction, and
identifies two kinds of complexity:
Complexity 149
1. Disorganized Complexity is found in a system with many loosely coupled, disorganized and equal elements,
which possesses certain average properties such as temperature or pressure. Such a system can be described by
“19th Century” statistical analysis techniques.
2. Organized Complexity can be found in a system with many strongly coupled, organized and different elements
which possess certain emergent properties and phenomena such as those exhibited by economic, political or social
systems. Such a system cannot be described well by traditional analysis techniques.
Weaver's ideas about this new kind of complex problem are some of the foundational ideas of systems thinking. (See
also Systems Thinking.)
Later authors, such as Flood and Carson (1993) and Lawson (2010), expand organized complexity to systems which
have been organized into a structure intended to be understood and thus amenable to engineering and life cycle
management (Braha et al. 2006). They also suggest that disorganized complexity could result from a heterogeneous
complex system evolving without explicit architectural control during its life (complexity creep). This is a different
use of the terms “organized” and “disorganized” to that used by Weaver. Care should be taken in mixing these ideas
Complexity should not be confused with "complicated". Many authors make a distinction between ordered and
disordered collections of elements.
Ordered systems have fixed relationships between elements and are not adaptable. Page (2009) cites a watch as an
example of something which can be considered an ordered system. Such a system is complicated, with many
elements working together. Its components are based on similar technologies, with clear mapping between form and
function. If the operating environment changes beyond prescribed limits, or one key component is removed, the
watch will cease to perform its function.
In common usage, chaos is a state of disorder or unpredictability characterized by elements which are not
interconnected and behave randomly with no adaptation or control. Chaos Theory (Kellert 1993) is applied to certain
dynamic systems (e.g., the weather) which, although they have structure and relationships, exhibit unpredictable
behavior. These systems may include aspects of randomness but can be described using deterministic models from
which their behavior can be described given a set of initial conditions. However, their structure is such that
(un-measurably) small perturbations in inputs or environmental conditions may result in unpredictable changes in
behavior. Such systems are referred to as deterministically chaotic or, simply, chaotic systems. Simulations of
chaotic systems can be created and, with increases in computing power, reasonable predictions of behavior are
possible at least some of the time.
On a spectrum of order to complete disorder, complexity is somewhere in the middle, with more flexibility and
change than complete order and more stability than complete disorder (Sheard and Mostashari 2009).
Complex systems may evolve “to the edge of chaos,” resulting in systems which can appear deterministic but which
exhibit counter intuitive behavior compared to that of more ordered systems. The statistics of chance events in a
complex system are often characterized by a power-law distribution, the “signature of complexity” (Sheard 2005).
The power-law distribution is found in a very wide variety of natural and man-made phenomena, and it means that
the probability of a low probability—large impact event is much higher than a Gaussian distribution would suggest.
Such a system may react in a non-linear way to exhibit abrupt phase changes. These phase changes can be either
reversible or irreversible. This has a major impact on engineered systems in terms of the occurrence, impact and
public acceptance of risk and failure.
Objective complexity is an attribute of complex systems and is a measure of where a system sits on this spectrum. It
is defined as the extent to which future states of the system cannot be predicted with certainty and precision,
regardless of our knowledge of current state and history. Subjective complexity is a measure of how easy it is for an
observer to understand a system or predict what it will do next. As such, it is a function of the perspective and
comprehension of each individual. It is important to be prepared to mitigate subjective complexity with consistent,
clear communication and strong stakeholder engagement (Sillitto 2009).
Complexity 150
The literature has evolved to a fairly consistent definition of the characteristics of system elements and relationships
for objective systems complexity. The following summary is given by Page (2009):
1. Independence: Autonomous system elements which are able to make their own decisions, influenced by
information from other elements and the adaptability algorithms the autonomous elements carry with themselves
(Sheard and Mostashari 2009).
2. Interconnectedness: System elements connect via a physical connection, shared data or simply a visual
awareness of where the other elements are and what they are doing, as in the case of the flock of geese or the
squadron of aircraft.
3. Diversity: System elements which are either technologically or functionally different in some way. For example,
elements may be carrying different adaptability algorithms.
4. Adaptability: Self-organizing system elements which can do what they want to do to support themselves or the
entire system in response to their environment (Sheard and Mostashari 2009). Adaptability is often achieved by
human elements but can be achieved with software. Pollock and Hodgson (2004) describe how this can be done in
a variety of complex system types, including power grids and enterprise systems.
Due to the variability of human behavior as part of a system and the perceptions of people outside the system, the
inclusion of people in a system is often a factor in their complexity. People may be viewed as observing systems or
as system elements which contribute to the other types of complexity (Axelrod and Cohen 1999). The rational or
irrational behavior of individuals in particular situations is a vital factor in respect to complexity (Kline 1995). Some
of this complexity can be reduced through education, training and familiarity with a system. Some is irreducible and
must be managed as part of a problem or solution. Checkland (1999) argues that a group of stakeholders will have its
own world views which lead them to form different, but equally valid, understandings of a system context. These
differences cannot be explained away or analyzed out, and must be understood and considered in the formulation of
problems and the creation of potential solutions.
Warfield (2006) developed a powerful methodology for addressing complex issues, particularly in the
socio-economic field, based on a relevant group of people developing an understanding of the issue in the form of a
set of interacting problems - what he called the “problematique”. The complexity is then characterized via several
measures, such as the number of significant problems, their interactions and the degree of consensus about the nature
of the problems. What becomes clear is that how, why, where and by whom a system is used may all contribute to its
perceived complexity.
Sheard and Mostashari (2011) sort the attributes of complexity into causes and effects. Attributes that cause
complexity include being non-linear; emergent; chaotic; adaptive; tightly coupled; self-organized; decentralized;
open; political (as opposed to scientific); and multi-scale; as well as having many pieces. The effects of those
attributes which make a system be perceived as complex include being uncertain; difficult to understand;
unpredictable; uncontrollable; unstable; unrepairable; unmaintainable and costly; having unclear cause and effect;
and taking too long to build.
Complexity 151
References
Works Cited
Axelrod, R. and M. Cohen. 1999. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New
York, NY, USA: Simon and Schuster.
Braha, D., A. Minai, and Y. Bar-Yam (eds.). 2006. Complex Engineered Systems: Science Meets Technology. New
York, NY, USA: Springer.
Flood, R. L., and E.R. Carson. 1993. Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to The Theory and Application of
Lawson, H. W. 2010. A Journey Through the Systems Landscape. Kings College, UK: College Publications.
Kellert, S. 1993. In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in Dynamical Systems, Chicago, IL, USA: University
of Chicago Press.
Kline, S. 1995. Foundations of Multidisciplinary Thinking. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press.
Page, Scott E. 2009. Understanding Complexity. Chantilly, VA, USA: The Teaching Company.
Pollock, J.T. and R. Hodgson. 2004. Adaptive Information. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA:
Doubleday/Currency.
Sheard, S.A. 2005. "Practical applications of complexity theory for systems engineers". Proceedings of the Fifteenth
Annual International Council on Systems Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1.
Sheard, SA. and A. Mostashari. 2011. "Complexity types: From science to systems engineering." Proceedings of the
21st Annual of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, Denver,
Colorado, USA, 20-23 June 2011.
Sillitto, H. 2014. "Architecting Systems - Concepts, Principles and Practice", London, UK: College Publications.
Warfield, J.N. 2006. An Introduction to Systems Science. London, UK: World Scientific Publishing.
Weaver, W. 1948. "Science and complexity." American Science, vol. 36, pp. 536-544.
Primary References
Flood, R. L., & E.R. Carson. 1993. Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to The Theory and Application of
Page, Scott E. 2009. Understanding Complexity. Chantilly, VA, USA: The Teaching Company.
Sheard, S.A. and A. Mostashari. 2009. "Principles of complex systems for systems engineering". Systems
Complexity 152
Ashby, W.R. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
Aslaksen, E.W. 2004. "System thermodynamics: A model illustrating complexity emerging from simplicity".
Systems Engineering, vol. 7, no. 3. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Aslaksen, E.W. 2009. Engineering Complex Systems: Foundations of Design in the Functional Domain. Boca Raton,
FL, USA: CRC Press.
Aslaksen, E.W. 2011. "Elements of a systems engineering ontology". Proceedings of SETE 2011, Canberra,
Australia.
Eisner, H. 2005. Managing Complex Systems: Thinking Outside the Box. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Jackson, S., D. Hitchins, and H. Eisner. 2010. “What is the Systems Approach?” INCOSE Insight, vol. 13, no. 1,
April, pp. 41-43, 2010.
MITRE. 2011. "Systems engineering strategies for uncertainty and complexity." Systems Engineering Guide.
Accessed 9 March 2011. Available at: http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/
enterprise_engineering/comprehensive_viewpoint/sys_engineering_strategies_uncertainty_complexity.html.
Ryan, A. 2007. "Emergence is coupled to scope, not Level, complexity". A condensed version appeared in INCOSE
Insight, vol. 11, no. 1, January, pp. 23-24, 2008.
Sillitto H.G. 2009. "On systems architects and systems architecting: Some thoughts on explaining the art and science
of system architecting." Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
International Symposium, Singapore, 20-23 July 2009.

Emergence 153
Emergence
Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Scott Jackson, Dick Fairley, Janet Singer, Duane Hybertson
This topic forms part of the Systems Science knowledge area (KA). It gives the background to some of the ways in
which emergence has been described, as well as an indication of current thinking on what it is and how it influences
systems engineering (SE) practice. It will discuss how these ideas relate to the general definitions of systems given in
What is a System?; in particular, how they relate to different engineered system contexts. This topic is closely related
to the complexity topic that precedes it.
Emergence is a consequence of the fundamental system concepts of holism and interaction (Hitchins 2007, 27).
System wholes have behaviors and properties arising from the organization of their elements and their relationships,
which only become apparent when the system is placed in different environments.
Questions that arise from this definition include: What kinds of systems exhibit different kinds of emergence and
under what conditions? Can emergence be predicted, and is it beneficial or detrimental to a system? How do we deal
with emergence in the development and use of engineered systems? Can it be planned for? How?
There are many varied and occasionally conflicting views on emergence. This topic presents the prevailing views
and provides references for others.
Overview of Emergence
As defined by Checkland, emergence is “the principle that entities exhibit properties which are meaningful only
when attributed to the whole, not to its parts.” (Checkland 1999, 314). Emergent system behavior can be viewed as a
consequence of the interactions and relationships between system elements rather than the behavior of individual
elements. It emerges from a combination of the behavior and properties of the system elements and the systems
structure or allowable interactions between the elements, and may be triggered or influenced by a stimulus from the
systems environment.
Emergence is common in nature. The pungent gas ammonia results from the chemical combination of two odorless
gases, hydrogen and nitrogen. As individual parts, feathers, beaks, wings, and gullets do not have the ability to
overcome gravity; however, when properly connected in a bird, they create the emergent behavior of flight. What we
refer to as “self-awareness” results from the combined effect of the interconnected and interacting neurons that make
up the brain (Hitchins 2007, 7).
Hitchins also notes that technological systems exhibit emergence. We can observe a number of levels of outcome
which arise from interaction between elements in an engineered system context. At a simple level, some system
outcomes or attributes have a fairly simple and well defined mapping to their elements; for example, center of
gravity or top speed of a vehicle result from a combination of element properties and how they are combined. Other
behaviors can be associated with these simple outcomes, but their value emerges in complex and less predictable
ways across a system. The single lap performance of a vehicle around a track is related to center of gravity and
speed; however, it is also affected by driver skill, external conditions, component ware, etc. Getting the 'best'
performance from a vehicle can only be achieved by a combination of good design and feedback from real laps
under race conditions.
There are also outcomes which are less tangible and which come as a surprise to both system developers and users.
How does lap time translate into a winning motor racing team? Why is a sports car more desirable to many than
other vehicles with performances that are as good or better?
Emergence can always be observed at the highest level of system. However, Hitchins (2007, 7) also points out that to
the extent that the systems elements themselves can be considered as systems, they also exhibit emergence. Page
(2009) refers to emergence as a “macro-level property.” Ryan (2007) contends that emergence is coupled to scope
Emergence 154
rather than system hierarchical levels. In Ryan’s terms, scope has to do with spatial dimensions (how system
elements are related to each other) rather than hierarchical levels.
Abbott (2006) does not disagree with the general definition of emergence as discussed above. However, he takes
issue with the notion that emergence operates outside the bounds of classical physics. He says that “such higher-level
entities…can always be reduced to primitive physical forces.”
Bedau and Humphreys (2008) and Francois (2004) provide comprehensive descriptions of the philosophical and
scientific background of emergence.
Types of Emergence
A variety of definitions of types of emergence exists. See Emmeche et al. (1997), Chroust (2003) and O’Connor and
Wong (2006) for specific details of some of the variants. Page (2009) describes three types of emergence: "simple",
"weak", and "strong".
According to Page, simple emergence is generated by the combination of element properties and relationships and
occurs in non-complex or “ordered” systems (see Complexity) (2009). To achieve the emergent property of
“controlled flight” we cannot consider only the wings, or the control system, or the propulsion system. All three must
be considered, as well as the way these three are interconnected-with each other, as well as with all the other parts of
the aircraft. Page suggests that simple emergence is the only type of emergence that can be predicted. This view of
emergence is also referred to as synergy (Hitchins 2009).
Page describes weak emergence as expected emergence which is desired (or at least allowed for) in the system
structure (2009). However, since weak emergence is a product of a complex system, the actual level of emergence
cannot be predicted just from knowledge of the characteristics of the individual system components.
The term strong emergence is used to describe unexpected emergence; that is, emergence not observed until the
system is simulated or tested or, more alarmingly, until the system encounters in operation a situation that was not
anticipated during design and development.
Strong emergence may be evident in failures or shutdowns. For example, the US-Canada Blackout of 2003 as
described by the US-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (US-Canada Power Task Force 2004) was a case of
cascading shutdown that resulted from the design of the system. Even though there was no equipment failure, the
shutdown was systemic. As Hitchins points out, this example shows that emergent properties are not always
beneficial (Hitchins 2007, 15).
Other authors make a different distinction between the ideas of strong, or unexpected, emergence and unpredictable
emergence:
• Firstly, there are the unexpected properties that could have been predicted but were not considered in a systems
development: "Properties which are unexpected by the observer because of his incomplete data set, with regard to
the phenomenon at hand" (Francois, C. 2004, 737). According to Jackson et al. (2010), a desired level of
emergence is usually achieved by iteration. This may occur as a result of evolutionary processes, in which
element properties and combinations are "selected for", depending on how well they contribute to a system’s
effectiveness against environmental pressures or by iteration of design parameters through simulation or build/test
cycles. Taking this view, the specific values of weak emergence can be refined, and examples of strong
emergence can be considered in subsequent iterations so long as they are amenable to analysis.
• Secondly, there are unexpected properties which cannot be predicted from the properties of the system’s
components: "Properties which are, in and of themselves, not derivable a priori from the behavior of the parts of
the system" (Francois, C. 2004, 737). This view of emergence is a familiar one in social or natural sciences, but
more controversial in engineering. We should distinguish between a theoretical and a practical unpredictability
(Chroust 2002). The weather forecast is theoretically predictable, but beyond certain limited accuracy practically
impossible due to its chaotic nature. The emergence of consciousness in human beings cannot be deduced from
Emergence 155
the physiological properties of the brain. For many, this genuinely unpredictable type of complexity has limited
value for engineering. (See Practical Considerations below.)
A type of system particularly subject to strong emergence is the system of systems (sos). The reason for this is that
the SoS, by definition, is composed of different systems that were designed to operate independently. When these
systems are operated together, the interaction among the parts of the system is likely to result in unexpected
emergence. Chaotic or truly unpredictable emergence is likely for this class of systems.
Emergent Properties
Emergent properties can be defined as follows: “A property of a complex system is said to be ‘emergent’ [in the case
when], although it arises out of the properties and relations characterizing its simpler constituents, it is neither
predictable from, nor reducible to, these lower-level characteristics” (Honderich 1995, 224).
All systems can have emergent properties which may or may not be predictable or amenable to modeling, as
discussed above. Much of the literature on complexity includes emergence as a defining characteristic of complex
systems. For example, Boccara (2004) states that “The appearance of emergent properties is the single most
distinguishing feature of complex systems.” In general, the more ordered a system is, the easier its emergent
properties are to predict. The more complex a system is, the more difficult predicting its emergent properties
becomes.
Some practitioners use the term “emergence” only when referring to “strong emergence”. These practitioners refer to
the other two forms of emergent behavior as synergy or “system level behavior” (Chroust 2002). Taking this view,
we would reserve the term "Emergent Property" for unexpected properties, which can be modeled or refined through
iterations of the systems development.
Unforeseen emergence causes nasty shocks. Many believe that the main job of the systems approach is to prevent
undesired emergence in order to minimize the risk of unexpected and potentially undesirable outcomes. This review
of emergent properties is often specifically associated with identifying and avoiding system failures (Hitchins 2007).
Good SE isn't just focused on avoiding system failure, however. It also involves maximizing opportunity by
understanding and exploiting emergence in engineered systems to create the required system level characteristics
from synergistic interactions between the components, not just from the components themselves (Sillitto 2010).
One important group of emergent properties includes properties such as agility and resilience. These are critical
system properties that are not meaningful except at the whole system level.
Practical Considerations
As mentioned above, one way to manage emergent properties is through iteration. The requirements to iterate the
design of an engineered system to achieve desired emergence results in a design process are lengthier than those
needed to design an ordered system. Creating an engineered system capable of such iteration may also require a
more configurable or modular solution. The result is that complex systems may be more costly and time-consuming
to develop than ordered ones, and the cost and time to develop is inherently less predictable.
Sillitto (2010) observes that “engineering design domains that exploit emergence have good mathematical models of
the domain, and rigorously control variability of components and subsystems, and of process, in both design and
operation.” The iterations discussed above can be accelerated by using simulation and modeling, so that not all the
iterations need to involve building real systems and operating them in the real environment.
The idea of domain models is explored further by Hybertson in the context of general models or patterns learned
over time and captured in a model space (Hybertson 2009). Hybertson states that knowing what emergence will
appear from a given design, including side effects, requires hindsight. For a new type of problem that has not been
solved, or a new type of system that has not been built, it is virtually impossible to predict emergent behavior of the
solution or system. Some hindsight, or at least some insight, can be obtained by modeling and iterating a specific
Emergence 156
system design; however, iterating the design within the development of one system yields only limited hindsight and
often does not give a full sense of emergence and side effects.
True hindsight and understanding comes from building multiple systems of the same type and deploying them, then
observing their emergent behavior in operation and the side effects of placing them in their environments. If those
observations are done systematically, and the emergence and side effects are distilled and captured in relation to the
design of the systems — including the variations in those designs — and made available to the community, then we
are in a position to predict and exploit the emergence.
Two factors are discovered in this type of testing environment: what works (that is, what emergent behavior and side
effects are desirable); and what does not work (that is, what emergent behavior and side effects are undesirable).
What works affirms the design. What does not work calls for corrections in the design. This is why multiple systems,
especially complex systems, must be built and deployed over time and in different environments - to learn and
understand the relations among the design, emergent behavior, side effects, and environment.
These two types of captured learning correspond respectively to patterns and “antipatterns,” or patterns of failure,
both of which are discussed in a broader context in the Principles of Systems Thinking and Patterns of Systems
Thinking topics.
The use of iterations to refine the values of emergent properties, either across the life of a single system or through
the development of patterns encapsulating knowledge gained from multiple developments, applies most easily to the
discussion of strong emergence above. In this sense, those properties which can be observed but cannot be related to
design choices are not relevant to a systems approach. However, they can have value when dealing with a
combination of engineering and managed problems which occur for system of systems contexts (Sillitto 2010). (See
Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems.)
References
Works Cited
Abbott, R. 2006. "Emergence explained: Getting epiphenomena to do real work". Complexity, vol. 12, no. 1
(September-October), pp. 13-26.
Bedau, M.A. and P. Humphreys, P. (eds.). 2008. "Emergence" In Contemporary Readings in Philosophy and
Science. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press.
Boccara, N. 2004. Modeling Complex Systems. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag.
Chroust. G. 2002. "Emergent properties in software systems." 10th Interdisciplinary Information Management Talks;
Hofer, C. and Chroust, G. (eds.). Verlag Trauner Linz, pp. 277-289.
Chroust, G., C. Hofer, C. Hoyer (eds.). 2005. The concept of emergence in systems engineering." The 12th Fuschl
Conversation, April 18-23, 2004, Institute for Systems Engineering and Automation, Johannes Kepler University
Linz. pp. 49-60.
Emmeche, C., S. Koppe, and F. Stjernfelt. 1997. "Explaining emergence: Towards an ontology of levels." Journal
for General Philosophy of Science, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 83-119. Accessed 3 December 2014. Available at:http://www.
nbi.dk/~emmeche/coPubl/97e.EKS/emerg.html.
Francois, C. 2004. International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, 2nd edition, 2 volumes. Munich,
Germany: K.G.Saur Verlag.
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley &
Sons.
Honderich. T. 1995. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
Emergence 157
Hybertson, D. 2009. Model-Oriented Systems Engineering Science: A Unifying Framework for Traditional and
Complex Systems. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Auerbach/CRC Press.
Jackson, S., D. Hitchins, and H. Eisner. 2010. "What is the Systems Approach?" INCOSE Insight. 13(1) (April
2010): 41-43.
O’Connor, T. and H. Wong. 2006. "Emergent Properties," in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed
December 3 2014: Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/.
Page, S.E. 2009. Understanding Complexity. The Great Courses. Chantilly, VA, USA: The Teaching Company.
Ryan, A. 2007. "Emergence is coupled to scope, not level." Complexity, vol. 13, no. 2, November-December.
Sillitto, H.G. 2010. "Design principles for ultra-large-scale systems". Proceedings of the 20th Annual International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 2010, Chicago, IL, USA, reprinted in
“The Singapore Engineer,” April 2011.
US-Canada Power System Outage Task Force. 2004. Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United
States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. Washington-Ottawa. Accessed 3 December 3, 2014. Available:
http:/ / energy. gov/ oe/ downloads/
blackout-2003-final-report-august-14-2003-blackout-united-states-and-canada-causes-and
Primary References
Emmeche, C., S. Koppe, and F. Stjernfelt. 1997. "Explaining emergence: Towards an ontology of levels." Journal
for General Philosophy of Science, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 83-119. Available: http:/ / www. nbi. dk/ ~emmeche/ coPubl/
97e.EKS/emerg.html.
Sons.
Page, S. E. 2009. Understanding Complexity. The Great Courses. Chantilly, VA, USA: The Teaching Company.

158
Knowledge Area: Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking
Lead Author: Rick Adcock
This knowledge area (KA) provides a guide to knowledge about systems thinking which is the integrating paradigm
for systems science and systems approaches to practice.
This is part of the wider systems knowledge which can help to provide a common language and intellectual
foundation, and make practical systems concepts, principles, patterns and tools accessible to systems engineering
(SE), as discussed in the Introduction to Part 2.
Topics
Each part of the Guide to the SE Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) is divided into KAs, which are groupings of
information with a related theme. The KAs, in turn, are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
• What is Systems Thinking?
• Concepts of Systems Thinking
• Principles of Systems Thinking
• Patterns of Systems Thinking
Introduction
Systems thinking is concerned with understanding or intervening in problem situations, based on the principles and
concepts of the systems paradigm. This KA offers some basic definitions of systems thinking. The following
diagram summarizes how the knowledge is presented.
Figure 1. Systems Thinking in the SEBoK. (SEBoK Original)
Systems thinking considers the similarities between systems from different domains in terms of a set of common
systems concepts, principles and patterns:
• A principle is a rule of conduct or behavior. To take this further, a principle is a “basic generalization that is
accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct” (WordWeb.com).
• A concept is an abstraction, or a general idea inferred or derived from specific instances.
Principles depend on concepts in order to state a “truth.” Hence, principles and concepts go hand in hand; principles
cannot exist without concepts and concepts are not very useful without principles to help guide the proper way to act
(Lawson and Martin 2008).
Many sources combine both concepts and the principles based on them. The Concepts of Systems Thinking article
presents concepts extracted from a variety of theory and practice sources. The Principles of Systems Thinking
article, in turn, presents a summary of important principles referring back to the concepts upon which they are based.
A pattern is an expression of observable similarities found in systems from different domains. Patterns exist in both
natural and man-made systems and are used in systems science and systems engineering. A summary of the different
classes of patterns and the use of patterns to support a systems approach is discussed in the final Patterns of Systems
Thinking article.
The practical application of systems thinking often employs the use of abstract system representations or models.
Some mention of models is made in this KA; additionally, a more complete guide is provided in Representing
Systems with Models.
References
Works Cited
Lawson, H., and J.N. Martin. 2008. "On the Use of Concepts and Principles for Improving Systems Engineering
Practice," in Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International
Symposium, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 5-19 June 2008.
WordWeb Online. n.d. "Definition: Principle." Accessed Dec 3, 2014. Available at: WordWeb Online http:/ / www.
wordwebonline.com/en/PRINCIPLE.
Primary References
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Revised ed. New York,
NY, USA: Braziller.
Churchman, C. W. 1968. The Systems Approach and its Enemies. New York, NY, USA: Dell Publishing.
Flood, R. L. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable. London UK: Routledge.
INCOSE. 2012. INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities,
version 3.2.2. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE),
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.1.
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the general principles applicable to systems?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 12, no. 4.
Lawson, H. 2010. A Journey Through the Systems Landscape. London, UK: College Publications, Kings College.
Ramage, M. and K. Shipp. 2009. Systems Thinkers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Weinberg, G. M. 1975. An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

What is Systems Thinking?

Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Brian Wells, Bud Lawson
This topic is part of the Systems Thinking knowledge area (KA). The scope of systems thinking is a starting point for
dealing with real world situations using a set of related systems concepts discussed in the Concepts of Systems
Thinking topic, systems principles discussed in the Principles of Systems Thinking topic, and system patterns
discussed in the Patterns of Systems Thinking topic.
Introduction
The concepts, principles, and patterns of systems thinking have arisen both from the work of systems scientists and
from the work of practitioners applying the insights of systems science to real-world problems.
Holism has been a dominant theme in systems thinking for nearly a century, in recognition of the need to consider a
system as a whole because of observed phenomena such as emergence. Proponents have included Wertheimer,
Smuts, Bertalanffy, Weiss, (Ackoff 1979), (Klir 2001), and (Koestler 1967) among many others.
A more detailed discussion of the most important movements in systems theory can be found in History of Systems
Science.
Identifying Systems of Interest

When humans observe or interact with a system, they allocate boundaries and names to parts of the system. This
naming may follow the natural hierarchy of the system, but will also reflect the needs and experience of the observer
to associate elements with common attributes of purposes relevant to their own. Thus, a number of systems of
interest (SoIs) (Flood and Carson 1993) must be identified and they must be both relevant and include a set of
elements which represent a system whole. This way of observing systems wherein the complex system relationships
are focused around a particular system boundary is called systemic resolution.
Systems thinking requires an ongoing process of attention and adaptation to ensure that one has appropriately
identified boundaries, dependencies, and relationships. Churchman (1968) and others have also considered broader
ethical, political, and social questions related to management science with regards to the relative power and
responsibility of the participants in system interventions. These are seen by critical systems thinkers as key factors to
be considered in defining problem system boundaries.
A system context can be used to define a SoI and to capture and agree on the important relationships between it, such
as the systems which it works with directly and the systems which influence it in some way. When this approach is
used to focus on part of a larger system, a balance of reductionism and holism is applied. This balance sits at the
heart of a systems approach. A systems context provides the tool for applying this balance and is thus an essential
part of any systems approach and hence, of systems engineering (SE) as well. Approaches for describing the context
of the different types of engineered systems are discussed in the Engineered System Context topic within the
Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems KA.
Thoughts on Systems Thinking

Senge (1990) discusses systems thinking in a number of ways as
a discipline for seeing wholes ... a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things ... a
process of discovery and diagnosis ... and as a sensibility for the subtle interconnectedness that gives
living systems their unique character.(Senge 2006, 68-69)
Churchman came to define a systems approach as requiring consideration of a system from the viewpoint of those
outside its boundary (Churchman 1979). There are many demonstrations that choosing too narrow a boundary, either
in terms of scope or timeline, results in the problem of the moment being solved only at the expense of a similar or
bigger problem being created somewhere else in space, community, or time (Senge 2006) and (Meadows 1977). This
is the “shifting the burden” archetype described in Patterns of Systems Thinking topic.
Churchman believes that an important component of system knowledge comes from "others" or "enemies" outside
the system; the systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another (Churchman
1968). In this famous phrase, Churchman suggests that people can step outside a system they are in and mentally try
to consider it through the lenses of other people's values. Churchman (1979) identified four main enemies of the
systems approach namely: politics, morality, religion and aesthetics.
To Churchman, the "enemies" of the systems approach provide a powerful way of learning about the systems
approach, precisely because they enable the rational thinker to step outside the boundary of a system and to look at
it. It means that systems thinkers are not necessarily just involved within a system but are essentially involved in
reasoning and decisions "outside" of systems rationality.
Some additional perspectives on systems thinking definitions are as follows:
• “Systems thinking requires the consciousness of the fact that we deal with models of our reality and not with the
reality itself.” (Ossimitz 1997, 1)
• “…what is often called ‘systemic thinking’ …is …a bundle of capabilities, and at the heart of it is the ability to
apply our normal thought processes, our common sense, to the circumstances of a given situation.” (Dörner 1996,
199)
• “Systems thinking provides a powerful way of taking account of causal connections that are distant in time and
space.” (Stacey 2000, 9)
Chaos and complexity theories have also impacted the development of systems thinking, including the treatment of
such concepts as emergence. According to Gharajedaghi:
Systems thinking is the art of simplifying complexity. It is about seeing through chaos, managing
interdependency, and understanding choice. We see the world as increasingly more complex and
chaotic because we use inadequate concepts to explain it. When we understand something, we no longer
see it as chaotic or complex. (Gharajedaghi 1999, 283)
Kasser considers systems thinking to be one element in a wider system of holistic thinking. Kasser defines holistic
thinking as follows: "...the combination of analysis [in the form of elaboration], systems thinking and critical
thinking" (Kasser 2010).
Systems Thinking and the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of

Knowledge
From these discussions, one can see systems thinking as both a set of founding ideas for the development of systems
theories and practices and also as a pervasive way of thinking needed by those developing and applying those
theories.
The SEBoK is particularly focused on how systems thinking can support a systems approach to engineered systems.
In order to examine a SoI in more detail, to understand, use, or change it in some way, practitioners are faced with an
apparent “systems thinking paradox.” One can only truly understand a system by considering all of its possible
relationships and interactions, inside and outside of its boundary and in all possible future situations (of both system
creation and life), but this makes it apparently impossible for people to understand a system or to predict all of the
consequences of changes to it.
If this means that all possible system relationships and environmental conditions must be considered to fully
understand the consequences of creating or changing a system, what useful work can be done?
In many ways this is the essence of all human endeavors, whether they are technical, managerial, social or political,
the so-called known knowns and unknown unknowns. The systems approach is a way of tackling real world problems
and making use of the concepts, principles and patterns of systems thinking to enable systems to be engineered and
used.
The systems principles of encapsulation and separation of concerns in Principles of Systems Thinking relate to this
issue. Some of the detail of complex situations must be hidden to allow focus on changes to a system element. The
impact must be considered of any changes that might be made across sufficient related system components to fit
within the acceptable commercial and social risks that must be considered. Engineering and management disciplines
deal with this by gathering as much knowledge as necessary to proceed at a risk level acceptable to the required
need. The assessment of what is enough and how much risk to take can, to some extent, be codified with rules and
regulations, and managed through processes and procedures; however, it is ultimately a combination of the skill and
judgment of the individuals performing the work.
References
Works Cited
NY, USA: Braziller.
Churchman, C.W. 1968. The Systems Approach. New York, NY, USA: Delacorte Press.
Churchman, C.W. 1979. The Systems Approach and Its Enemies. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.
Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Dorner, H., and A. Karpati. 2008. "Mentored innovation in teacher training using two virtual collaborative learning
environments," in Beyond Knowledge: The Legacy of Competence--Meaningful Computer-Based Learning
Environments, eds. J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert and L. Kester. Vol. VIII. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business
Architecture, 1st ed. Woburn, MA, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Jackson, M. 1989. "Which Systems Methodology When? Initial Results from a Research Program," in R. Flood, M.
Jackson and P. Keys (eds), Systems Prospects: The Next Ten Years of Systems Research. New York, NY, USA:
Plenum.
Kasser, J. 2010. "Holistic thinking and how it can produce innovative solutions to difficult problems." Paper
presented at 7th Bi-annual European Systems Engineering Conference (EuSEC), Stockholm, Sweden, 24-27 May
2010.
Meadows, D. H. et al. 1977. "Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of
Mankind." New American Library, paperback, ISBN 0-451-13695-0; Universe Books, hardcover, 1972, ISBN
0-87663-222-3 (scarce).
Ossimitz, G. 1997. "The development of systems thinking skills using system dynamics modeling tools," in
Universitat Klagenfurt [database online]. Klagenfurt, Austria: Universitat Klagenfurt.Accessed November 12 2007.
Available at: http://wwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/gossimit/sdyn/gdm_eng.htm.
Senge, P.M. 1990, 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY,
USA: Doubleday Currency.
Stacey, R.D., D. Griffin, and P. Shaw. 2000. Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems
thinking? London, U.K.: Routledge.
Primary References
NY: Braziller.
Churchman, C.W. 1979. "The Systems Approach and its Enemies". New York: Basic Books.
Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business
Architecture, 1st ed. Woburn, MA, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Senge, P.M. 1990, 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY,
Edson, R. 2008. Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer, in: ASYST Institute (ed.). Arlington, VA: Analytic Services.
Klir, G. 2001. Facets of Systems Science, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Koestler, A. 1967. The Ghost in the Machine. New York, NY, USA: Macmillan. Lawson, H. 2010. A Journey
Through the Systems Landscape. London, Kings College, UK.
MITRE. 2012. “Systems Engineering Guide.” Accessed September 11, 2012. Available at: http:/ / www. mitre. org/
work/systems_engineering/guide.
Rebovich, G., Jr. 2005. "Systems thinking for the enterprise (new and emerging perspectives)," in Volume 2 of
Enterprise Systems Engineering Theory and Practice. McLean, VA, USA:The MITRE Corporation.
Senge, P.M., A. Klieiner, C. Roberts, R.B. Ross, and B.J. Smith. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies
and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Crown Business.

Concepts of Systems Thinking

This article forms part of the Systems Thinking knowledge area (KA). It describes systems concepts, knowledge that
can be used to understand problems and solutions to support systems thinking.
The concepts below have been synthesized from a number of sources, which are themselves summaries of concepts
from other authors. Ackoff (1971) proposed a system of system concepts as part of general system theory (GST);
Skyttner (2001) describes the main GST concepts from a number of systems science authors; Flood and Carlson
(1993) give a description of concepts as an overview of systems thinking; Hitchins (2007) relates the concepts to
systems engineering practice; and Lawson (2010) describes a system of system concepts where systems are
categorized according to fundamental concepts, types, topologies, focus, complexity, and roles.
Wholeness and Interaction

A system is defined by a set of elements which exhibit sufficient cohesion, or "togetherness," to form a bounded
whole (Hitchins 2007; Boardman and Sauser 2008).
According to Hitchins, interaction between elements is the "key" system concept (Hitchins 2009, 60). The focus on
interactions and holism is a push-back against the perceived reductionist focus on parts and provides recognition that
in complex systems, the interactions among parts is at least as important as the parts themselves.
An open system is defined by the interactions between system elements within a system boundary and by the
interaction between system elements and other systems within an environment (see What is a System?). The
remaining concepts below apply to open systems.
Regularity
Regularity is a uniformity or similarity that exists in multiple entities or at multiple times (Bertalanffy 1968).
Regularities make science possible and engineering efficient and effective. Without regularities, we would be forced
to consider every natural and artificial system problem and solution as unique. We would have no scientific laws, no
categories or taxonomies, and each engineering effort would start from a clean slate.
Similarities and differences exist in any set or population. Every system problem or solution can be regarded as
unique, but no problem/solution is in fact entirely unique. The nomothetic approach assumes regularities among
entities and investigates what the regularities are. The idiographic approach assumes each entity is unique and
investigates the unique qualities of entities, (Bertalanffy 1975).
A very large amount of regularity exists in both natural systems and engineered systems. Patterns of systems
thinking capture and exploit that regularity.
State and Behavior

Any quality or property of a system element is called an attribute. The state of a system is a set of system attributes
at a given time. A system event describes any change to theenvironment of a system, and hence its state:
• Static - A single state exists with no events.
• Dynamic - Multiple possible stable states exist.
• Homeostatic - System is static but its elements are dynamic. The system maintains its state by internal
adjustments.
A stable state is one in which a system will remain until another event occurs.
State can be monitored using state variables, values of attributes which indicate the system state. The set of possible
values of state variables over time is called the "'state space'". State variables are generally continuous but can be
modeled using a finite state model (or "state machine").
Ackoff (1971) considers "change" to be how a system is affected by events, and system behavior as the effect a
system has upon its environment. A system can
• react to a request by turning on a light,
• respond to darkness by deciding to turn on the light, or
• act to turn on the lights at a fixed time, randomly or with discernible reasoning.
A stable system is one which has one or more stable states within an environment for a range of possible events:
• Deterministic systems have a one-to-one mapping of state variables to state space, allowing future states to be
predicted from past states.
• Non-Deterministic systems have a many-to-many mapping of state variables; future states cannot be reliably
predicted.
The relationship between determinism and system complexity, including the idea of chaotic systems, is further
discussed in the Complexity article.
Survival Behavior
Systems often behave in a manner that allows them to sustain themselves in one or more alternative viable states.
Many natural or social systems have this goal, either consciously or as a "self organizing" system, arising from the
interaction between elements.
Entropy is the tendency of systems to move towards disorder or disorganization. In physics, entropy is used to
describe how organized heat energy is “lost” into the random background energy of the surrounding environment (the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics). A similar effect can be seen in engineered systems. What happens to a building or
garden left unused for any time? Entropy can be used as a metaphor for aging, skill fade, obsolescence, misuse,
boredom, etc.
"Negentropy" describes the forces working in a system to hold off entropy. Homeostasis is the biological equivalent
of this, describing behavior which maintains a "steady state" or "dynamic equilibrium." Examples in nature include
human cells, which maintain the same function while replacing their physical content at regular intervals. Again, this
can be used as a metaphor for the fight against entropy, e.g. training, discipline, maintenance, etc.
Hitchins (2007) describes the relationship between the viability of a system and the number of connections between
its elements. Hitchins's concept of connected variety states that stability of a system increases with its connectivity
(both internally and with its environment). (See variety.)
Goal Seeking Behavior

Some systems have reasons for existence beyond simple survival. Goal seeking is one of the defining characteristics
of engineered systems:
• A goal is a specific outcome which a system can achieve in a specified time
• An objective is a longer-term outcome which can be achieved through a series of goals.
• An ideal is an objective which cannot be achieved with any certainty, but for which progress towards the
objective has value.
Systems may be single-goal seeking (perform set tasks), multi-goal seeking (perform related tasks), or reflective (set
goals to tackle objectives or ideas). There are two types of goal seeking systems:
• Purposive systems have multiple goals with some shared outcome. Such a system can be used to provide
pre-determined outcomes within an agreed time period. This system may have some freedom to choose how to
achieve the goal. If it has memory, it may develop processes describing the behaviors needed for defined goals.
Most machines or software systems are purposive.
• Purposeful systems are free to determine the goals needed to achieve an outcome. Such a system can be tasked to
pursue objectives or ideals over a longer time through a series of goals. Humans and sufficiently complex
machines are purposeful.
Control Behavior
Cybernetics, the science of control, defines two basic control mechanisms:
• Negative feedback, maintaining system state against set objectives or levels.
• Positive feedback, forced growth or contraction to new levels.
One of the main concerns of cybernetics is the balance between stability and speed of response. A black-box system
view looks at the whole system. Control can only be achieved by carefully balancing inputs with outputs, which
reduces speed of response. A white-box system view considers the system elements and their relationships; control
mechanisms can be embedded into this structure to provide more responsive control and associated risks to stability.
Another useful control concept is that of a "meta-system", which sits over the system and is responsible for
controlling its functions, either as a black-box or white-box. In this case, behavior arises from the combination of
system and meta-system.
Control behavior is a trade between:
• Specialization, the focus of system behavior to exploit particular features of its environment, and
• Flexibility, the ability of a system to adapt quickly to environmental change.
While some system elements may be optimized for specialization, a temperature sensitive switch, flexibility, or an
autonomous human controller, complex systems must strike a balance between the two for best results. This is an
example of the concept of dualism, discussed in more detail in Principles of Systems Thinking.
Variety describes the number of different ways elements can be controlled and is dependent on the different ways in
which they can then be combined. The Law of Requisite Variety states that a control system must have at least as
much variety as the system it is controlling (Ashby 1956).
Function
Ackoff defines functions as outcomes which contribute to goals or objectives. To have a function, a system must be
able to provide the outcome in two or more different ways. (This is called equifinality.)
This view of function and behavior is common in systems science. In this paradigm, all system elements have
behavior of some kind; however, to be capable of functioning in certain ways requires a certain richness of
behaviors.
In most hard systems approaches, a set of functions are described from the problem statement and then associated
with one or more alternative element structures (Flood and Carson 1993). This process may be repeated until a
system component (implementable combination of function and structure) has been defined (Martin 1997). Here,
function is defined as either a task or activity that must be performed to achieve a desired outcome or as a
transformation of inputs to outputs. This transformation may be:
• Synchronous, a regular interaction with a closely related system, or
• Asynchronous, an irregular response to a demand from another system that often triggers a set response.
The behavior of the resulting system is then assessed as a combination of function and effectiveness. In this case,
behavior is seen as an external property of the system as a whole and is often described as analogous to human or
organic behavior (Hitchins 2009).
Hierarchy, Emergence and Complexity

System behavior is related to combinations of element behaviors. Most systems exhibit increasing variety; i.e., they
have behavior resulting from the combination of element behaviors. The term "synergy," or weak emergence, is used
to describe the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is generally true; however, it is also
possible to get reducing variety, in which the whole function is less than the sum of the parts (Hitchins 2007).
Complexity frequently takes the form of hierarchies. Hierarchic systems have some common properties independent
of their specific content, and they will evolve far more quickly than non-hierarchic systems of comparable size
(Simon 1996). A natural system hierarchy is a consequence of wholeness, with strongly cohesive elements grouping
together forming structures which reduce complexity and increase robustness (Simon 1962).
Encapsulation is the enclosing of one thing within another. It may also be described as the degree to which it is
enclosed. System encapsulation encloses system elements and their interactions from the external environment, and
usually involves a system boundary that hides the internal from the external; for example, the internal organs of the
human body can be optimized to work effectively within tightly defined conditions because they are protected from
extremes of environmental change.
Socio-technical systems form what are known as control hierarchies, with systems at a higher level having some
ownership of control over those at lower levels. Hitchins (2009) describes how systems form "preferred patterns"
which can be used to enhance the stability of interacting systems hierarchies.
Looking across a hierarchy of systems generally reveals increasing complexity at the higher level, relating to both
the structure of the system and how it is used. The term emergence describes behaviors emerging across a complex
system hierarchy.
Effectiveness, Adaptation and Learning

Systems effectiveness is a measure of the system's ability to perform the functions necessary to achieve goals or
objectives. Ackoff (1971) defines this as the product of the number of combinations of behavior to reach a function
and the efficiency of each combination.
Hitchins (2007) describes effectiveness as a combination of performance (how well a function is done in ideal
conditions), availability (how often the function is there when needed), and survivability (how likely is it that the
system will be able to use the function fully).
System elements and their environments change in a positive, neutral or negative way in individual situations. An
adaptive system is one that is able to change itself or its environment if its effectiveness is insufficient to achieve its
current or future objectives. Ackoff (1971) defines four types of adaptation, changing the environment or the system
in response to internal or external factors.
A system may also learn, improving its effectiveness over time without any change in state or goal.
References
Works Cited
Ackoff, R. 1979. "The future of operational research is past," Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 30,
no. 2, pp. 93–104, Pergamon Press.
Ashby, W R. 1956. "Chapter 11," in Introduction to Cybernetics. London, UK: Wiley.
NY, USA: Braziller.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1975. Perspectives on General System Theory. E. Taschdjian, ed. New York, NY, USA: George
Braziller.
Taylor & Francis.
Systems Science. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and
Sons.
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the general principles applicable to systems?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 12, no. 4, pp.
59-63.
Martin, J. N. 1997. Systems Engineering Guidebook. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Skyttner, L. 2001. General Systems Theory: Ideas and Applications. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., pp.
53-69.
Simon, H.A. 1962. "The architecture of complexity," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 106,
no. 6, December 12, pp. 467-482.
Simon, H. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Primary References
Ackoff, R.L. 1971. "Towards a system of systems concept," Management Science, vol. 17, no. 11.
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the general principles applicable to systems?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 12, no. 4,pp 59-63.
Edson, R. 2008. Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer. Arlington, VA, USA: Applied Systems Thinking Institute
(ASysT), Analytic Services Inc.
Jackson, S., D. Hitchins, and H. Eisner. 2010. "What is the systems approach?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 13, no. 1,
April, , pp. 41-43.
Waring, A. 1996. "Chapter 1," in Practical Systems Thinking. London, UK: International Thomson Business Press.

Principles of Systems Thinking

This topic forms part of the Systems Thinking knowledge area (KA). It identifies systems principles as part of the
basic ideas of systems thinking.
Some additional concepts more directly associated with engineered systems are described, and a summary of
systems principles associated with the concepts already defined is provided. A number of additional “laws” and
heuristics are also discussed.
Systems Principles, Laws, and Heuristics

A principle is a general rule of conduct or behavior (Lawson and Martin 2008). It can also be defined as a basic
generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct (WordWeb 2012c).
Thus, systems principles can be used as a basis for reasoning about systems thinking or associated conduct (systems
approaches).
Separation of Concerns
A systems approach is focused on a systems-of-interest (SoI) of an open system. This SoI consists of open,
interacting subsystems that as a whole interact with and adapt to other systems in an environment. The systems
approach also considers the SoI in its environment to be part of a larger, wider, or containing system (Hitchins
2009).
In the What is Systems Thinking? topic, a “systems thinking paradox” is discussed. How is it possible to take a
holistic system view while still being able to focus on changing or creating systems?
Separation of concerns describes a balance between considering parts of a system problem or solution while not
losing sight of the whole (Greer 2008). Abstraction is the process of taking away characteristics from something in
order to reduce it to a set of base characteristics (SearchCIO 2012). In attempting to understand complex situations,
it is easier to focus on bounded problems, whose solutions still remain agnostic to the greater problem (Erl 2012).
This process sounds reductionist, but it can be applied effectively to systems. The key to the success of this approach
is ensuring that one of the selected problems is the concern of the system as a whole. Finding balance between using
abstraction to focus on specific concerns while ensuring the whole is continually considered is at the center of
systems approaches. A view is a subset of information observed of one or more entities, such as systems. The
physical or conceptual point from which a view is observed is the viewpoint, which can be motivated by one or more
observer concerns. Different views of the same target must be both separate, to reflect separation of concerns, and
integrated such that all views of a given target are consistent and form a coherent whole (Hybertson 2009). Some
sample views of a system are internal (Of what does it consist?), external (What are its properties and behavior as a
whole?), static (What are its parts or structures?); and dynamic (interactions).
encapsulation, which encloses system elements and their interactions from the external environment, is discussed in
Concepts of Systems Thinking. Encapsulation is associated with modularity, the degree to which a system's
components may be separated and recombined (Griswold 1995). Modularity applies to systems in natural, social, and
engineered domains. In engineering, encapsulation is the isolation of a system function within a module; it provides
precise specifications for the module (IEEE Std. 610.12-1990).
Dualism is a characteristic of systems in which they exhibit seemingly contradictory characteristics that are
important for the system (Hybertson 2009). The yin yang concept in Chinese philosophy emphasizes the interaction
between dual elements and their harmonization, ensuring a constant dynamic balance through a cyclic dominance of
one element and then the other, such as day and night (IEP 2006).
From a systems perspective, the interaction, harmonization, and balance between system properties is important.
Hybertson (2009) defines leverage as the duality between:
• Power, the extent to which a system solves a specific problem, and
• Generality, the extent to which a system solves a whole class of problems.
While some systems or elements may be optimized for one extreme of such dualities, a dynamic balance is needed to
be effective in solving complex problems.
Summary of Systems Principles

A set of systems principles is given in Table 1 below. The "Names" segment points to concepts underlying the
principle. (See Concepts of Systems Thinking). Following the table, two additional sets of items related to systems
principles are noted and briefly discussed: prerequisite laws for design science, and heuristics and pragmatic
principles.
Table 1. A Set of Systems Principles. (SEBoK Original)
Name Statement of Principle
Abstraction A focus on essential characteristics is important in problem solving because it allows problem solvers to ignore the
nonessential, thus simplifying the problem (Sci-Tech Encyclopedia 2009; SearchCIO 2012; Pearce 2012).
Boundary A boundary or membrane separates the system from the external world. It serves to concentrate interactions inside the
system while allowing exchange with external systems (Hoagland, Dodson, and Mauck 2001).
Change Change is necessary for growth and adaptation, and should be accepted and planned for as part of the natural order of
things rather than something to be ignored, avoided, or prohibited (Bertalanffy 1968; Hybertson 2009).
Dualism Recognize dualities and consider how they are, or can be, harmonized in the context of a larger whole (Hybertson 2009).
Encapsulation Hide internal parts and their interactions from the external environment (Klerer 1993; IEEE 1990).
Equifinality In open systems, the same final state may be reached from different initial conditions and in different ways (Bertalanffy
1968). This principle can be exploited, especially in systems of purposeful agents.
Holism A system should be considered as a single entity, a whole, not just as a set of parts (Ackoff 1979; Klir 2001).
Interaction The properties, capabilities, and behavior of a system are derived from its parts, from interactions between those parts, and
from interactions with other systems (Hitchins 2009 p. 60).
Layer Hierarchy The evolution of complex systems is facilitated by their hierarchical structure (including stable intermediate forms) and the
understanding of complex systems is facilitated by their hierarchical description (Pattee 1973; Bertalanffy 1968; Simon
1996).
Leverage Achieve maximum leverage (Hybertson 2009). Because of the power versus generality tradeoff, leverage can be achieved
by a complete solution (power) for a narrow class of problems, or by a partial solution for a broad class of problems
(generality).
Modularity Unrelated parts of the system should be separated, and related parts of the system should be grouped together (Griswold
1995; Wikipedia 2012a).
Network The network is a fundamental topology for systems that forms the basis of togetherness, connection, and dynamic
interaction of parts that yield the behavior of complex systems (Lawson 2010; Martin et al. 2004; Sillitto 2010).
Parsimony One should choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest assumptions (Cybernetics
2012). This applies not only to choosing a design, but also to operations and requirements.
Regularity Systems science should find and capture regularities in systems, because those regularities promote systems understanding
and facilitate systems practice (Bertalanffy 1968).
Relations A system is characterized by its relations: the interconnections between the elements. Feedback is a type of relation. The
set of relations defines the network of the system (Odum 1994).
Separation of A larger problem is more effectively solved when decomposed into a set of smaller problems or concerns (Erl 2012; Greer
Concerns 2008).
Similarity/Difference Both the similarities and differences in systems should be recognized and accepted for what they are (Bertalanffy 1975 p.
75; Hybertson 2009). Avoid forcing one size fits all, and avoid treating everything as entirely unique.
Stability/Change Things change at different rates, and entities or concepts at the stable end of the spectrum can and should be used to
provide a guiding context for rapidly changing entities at the volatile end of the spectrum (Hybertson 2009). The study of
complex adaptive systems can give guidance to system behavior and design in changing environments (Holland 1992).
Synthesis Systems can be created by “choosing (conceiving, designing, selecting) the right parts, bringing them together to interact in
the right way, and in orchestrating those interactions to create requisite properties of the whole, such that it performs with
optimum effectiveness in its operational environment, so solving the problem that prompted its creation” (Hitchins 2009:
120).
View Multiple views, each based on a system aspect or concern, are essential to understand a complex system or problem
situation. One critical view is how concern relates to properties of the whole (Edson 2008; Hybertson 2009).
The principles are not independent. They have synergies and tradeoffs. Lipson (2007), for example, argued that
“scalability of open-ended evolutionary processes depends on their ability to exploit functional modularity, structural
regularity and hierarchy.” He proposed a formal model for examining the properties, dependencies, and tradeoffs
among these principles. Edson (2008) related many of the above principles in a structure called the conceptagon,
which he modified from the work of Boardman and Sauser (2008). Edson also provided guidance on how to apply
these principles. Not all principles apply to every system or engineering decision. Judgment, experience, and
heuristics (see below) provide understanding into which principles apply in a given situation.
Several principles illustrate the relation of view with the dualism and yin yang principle, for example, holism and
separation of concerns. These principles appear to be contradictory but are in fact dual ways of dealing with
complexity. Holism deals with complexity by focusing on the whole system, while separation of concerns divides a
problem or system into smaller, more manageable elements that focus on particular concerns. They are reconciled by
the fact that both views are needed to understand systems and to engineer systems; focusing on only one or the other
does not give sufficient understanding or a good overall solution. This dualism is closely related to the systems
thinking paradox described in What is Systems Thinking?.
Rosen (1979) discussed “false dualisms” of systems paradigms that are considered incompatible but are in fact
different aspects or views of reality. In the present context, they are thus reconcilable through yin yang
harmonization. Edson (2008) emphasized viewpoints as an essential principle of systems thinking; specifically, as a
way to understand opposing concepts.
Derick Hitchins (2003) produced a systems life cycle theory described by a set of seven principles forming an
integrated set. This theory describes the creation, manipulation and demise of engineered systems. These principles
consider the factors which contribute to the stability and survival of man made systems in an environment. Stability
is associated with the principle of connected variety, in which stability is increased by variety, plus the cohesion
and adaptability of that variety. Stability is limited by allowable relations, resistance to change, and patterns of
interaction. Hitchins describes how interconnected systems tend toward a cyclic progression, in which variety is
generated, dominance emerges to suppress variety, dominant modes decay and collapse and survivors emerge to
generate new variety.
Guidance on how to apply many of these principles to engineered systems is given in the topic Synthesizing Possible
Solutions, as well as in System Definition and other knowledge areas in Part 3 of the SEBoK.
Prerequisite Laws of Design Science

John Warfield (1994) identified a set of laws of generic design science that are related to systems principles. Three
of these laws are stated here:
1. ‘’Law of Requisite Variety’’: A design situation embodies a variety that must be matched by the specifications.
The variety includes the diversity of stakeholders. This law is an application of the design science of the Ashby
(1956) Law of Requisite Variety, which was defined in the context of cybernetics and states that to successfully
regulate a system, the variety of the regulator must be at least as large as the variety of the regulated system.
2. ‘’Law of Requisite Parsimony’’: Information must be organized and presented in a way that prevents human
information overload. This law derives from Miller’s findings on the limits of human information processing
capacity (Miller 1956). Warfield’s structured dialog method is one possible way to help achieve the requisite
parsimony.
3. ‘’Law of Gradation’’: Any conceptual body of knowledge can be graded in stages or varying degrees of
complexity and scale, ranging from simplest to most comprehensive, and the degree of knowledge applied to any
design situation should match the complexity and scale of the situation. A corollary, called the Law of
Diminishing Returns, states that a body of knowledge should be applied to a design situation at the stage at which
the point of diminishing returns is reached.
Heuristics and Pragmatic Principles

A heuristic is a common sense rule intended to increase the probability of solving some problem (WordWeb 2012b).
In the present context, it may be regarded as an informal or pragmatic principle. Maier and Rechtin (2000) identified
an extensive set of heuristics that are related to systems principles. A few of these heuristics are stated here:
• Relationships among the elements are what give systems their added value. This is related to the ‘’Interaction’’
principle.
• Efficiency is inversely proportional to universality. This is related to the ‘’Leverage’’ principle.
• The first line of defense against complexity is simplicity of design. This is related to the ‘’Parsimony’’ principle.
• In order to understand anything, you must not try to understand everything (attributed to Aristotle). This is related
to the ‘’Abstraction’’ principle.
An International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) working group (INCOSE 1993) defined a set of
“pragmatic principles” for systems engineering (SE). They are essentially best practice heuristics for engineering a
system. For example:
• Know the problem, the customer, and the consumer
• Identify and assess alternatives to converge on a solution
• Maintain the integrity of the system
Hitchins defines a set of SE principles which include principles of holism and synthesis as discussed above, as well
as principles describing how systems problems that are of particular relevance to a Systems Approach Applied to
Engineered Systems should be resolved (Hitchins 2009).
References
Works Cited
Ackoff, R. 1979. "The future of operational research is past," Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 30,
no. 2, pp. 93–104, Pergamon Press.
Ashby, W.R. 1956. "Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems," Cybernetica, vol. 1,
no. 2, pp. 1–17.
NY, USA: Braziller.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1975. Perspectives on General System Theory. E. Taschdjian, ed. New York, NY, USA: George
Braziller.
Taylor & Francis.
Cybernetics (Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems). 2012. "Principle of Parsimony or Principle of
Simplicity." Available at: Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems http:/ / pespmc1. vub. ac. be/ ASC/
PRINCI_SIMPL.html.Accessed December 3, 2014.
Edson, R. 2008. Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer. Arlington, VA, USA: Applied Systems Thinking (ASysT)
Institute, Analytic Services Inc.
Erl, T. 2012. "SOA Principles: An Introduction to the Service Orientation Paradigm." Available at: Arcitura http:/ /
www.soaprinciples.com/p3.php.Accessed December 3 2014.
Greer, D. 2008. "The Art of Separation of Concerns." Available at: Aspiring Craftsman http:/ / aspiringcraftsman.
com/tag/separation-of-concerns/.Accessed December 3 2014
Griswold, W. 1995. "Modularity Principle." Available at: William Griswold http:/ / cseweb. ucsd. edu/ users/ wgg/
CSE131B/Design/node1.html.Accessed December 3 2014.
Hitchins D. K. 2003. Advanced Systems Thinking Engineering and Management. Boston, MA, USA: Artech House.
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the general principles applicable to systems?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 12, no. 4, pp.
59-63.
Hoagland, M., B. Dodson, and J. Mauck. 2001. Exploring the Way Life Works. Burlington, MA, USA: Jones and
Bartlett Publishers, Inc.
Holland, J. 1992. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to
Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
IEEE. 1990. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. Geneva, Switzerland: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Std 610.12-1990.
IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). 2006. "Yinyang (Yin-yang)." Available at: Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/yinyang/.Accessed December 3, 2014.
INCOSE. 1993. An Identification of Pragmatic Principles - Final Report. SE Principles Working Group, January 21,
1993.
Klerer, S. “System management information modeling,” IEEE Communications, vol. 31, no. 5 May 1993, pp. 38-44.
UK.
Lawson, H. and J. Martin. 2008. "On the use of concepts and principles for improving systems engineering practice."
INCOSE International Symposium 2008, The Netherlands, 15-19 June 2008.
Lipson, H. 2007. "Principles of modularity, regularity, and hierarchy for scalable systems," Journal of Biological
Physics and Chemistry, vol. 7 pp. 125–128.
Maier, M. and E. Rechtin. 2000. The Art of Systems Architecting, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Miller, G. 1956. "The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing
information," The Psychological Review, vol. 63, pp. 81–97.
Odum, H. 1994. Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology (Revised Edition). Boulder,
CO, USA: University Press of Colorado.
Pattee, H., Ed.1973. Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems. New York, NY, USA: George Braziller.
Pearce, J. 2012. "The Abstraction Principle." Available at: Jon Pearce, San Jose State University http:/ / www. cs.
sjsu.edu/~pearce/modules/lectures/ood/principles/Abstraction.htm.Accessed December 3 2014.
Rosen, R. 1979. "Old trends and new trends in general systems research," International Journal of General Systems,
vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 173-184.
Sci-Tech Encyclopedia. 2009. "Abstract data type," in McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science and
Technology, Sixth Edition, New York, NY, USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
SearchCIO. 2012. "Abstraction." Available at: SearchCIO http:/ / searchcio-midmarket. techtarget. com/ definition/
abstraction.Accessed December 3 2014.
Sillitto, H. 2010. "Design principles for ultra-large-scale (ULS) systems," Proceedings of INCOSE International
Symposium 2010,, Chicago, IL,12-15 July 2010.
Simon, H. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Warfield, J.N. 1994. A Science of Generic Design. Ames, IA, USA: Iowa State University Press.
Wikipedia. 2012a. "Modularity." Available at: Wikipedia http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Modularity. Accessed
December 3 2014.
WordWeb. 2012b. "Dualism." Available at: WordWeb http:/ / www. wordwebonline. com/ en/ DUALISM.
Accessed December 3 2014.
WordWeb. 2012c. "Heuristic." Available at: WordWeb http:/ / www. wordwebonline. com/ en/ HEURISTIC.
WordWeb. 2012d. "Principle." Available at: WordWeb http:/ / www. wordwebonline. com/ en/ PRINCIPLE.
Primary References
NY, USA: Braziller.
Francois, F. Ed. 2004. International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, 2nd ed. Munich, Germany: K. G.
Saur Verlag.
Meyers, R. Ed. 2009. Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Midgley, G. Ed. 2003. Systems Thinking. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Volk, T., and J.W. Bloom. 2007. "The use of metapatterns for research into complex systems of teaching, learning,
and schooling. Part I: Metapatterns in nature and culture," Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and
Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 25—43.

Patterns of Systems Thinking

This topic forms part of the Systems Thinking knowledge area (KA). It identifies systems patterns as part of the
basic ideas of systems thinking. The general idea of patterns and a number of examples are described. A brief
conclusion discusses the maturity of systems science from the perspective of principles and patterns.
Systems Patterns
This section first discusses definitions, types, and pervasiveness of patterns. Next, samples of basic patterns in the
form of hierarchy and network patterns, metapatterns, and systems engineering (SE) patterns are discussed. Then
samples of patterns of failure (or “antipatterns”) are presented in the form of system archetypes, along with
antipatterns in software engineering and other fields. Finally, a brief discussion of patterns as maturity indicators is
given.
Pattern Definitions and Types

The most general definition of pattern is that it is an expression of an observed regularity. Patterns exist in both
natural and artificial systems and are used in both systems science and systems engineering (SE). Theories in science
are patterns. Building architecture styles are patterns. Engineering uses patterns extensively.
Patterns are a representation of similarities in a set or class of problems, solutions or systems. In addition, some
patterns can also represent uniqueness or differences, e.g., uniqueness pattern or unique identifier, such as
automobile vehicle identification number (VIN), serial number on a consumer product, human fingerprints, DNA.
The pattern is that a unique identifier, common to all instances in a class (such as a fingerprint), distinguishes
between all instances in that class.
The term pattern has been used primarily in building architecture and urban planning (Alexander et al. 1977,
Alexander 1979) and in software engineering (e.g., Gamma et al. 1995; Buschmann et al. 1996). Their definitions
portray a pattern as capturing design ideas as an archetypal and reusable description. A design pattern provides a
generalized solution in the form of templates to a commonly occurring real-world problem within a given context. A
design pattern is not a finished design that can be transformed directly into a specific solution. It is a description or
template for how to solve a problem that can be used in many different specific situations (Gamma et al. 1995;
Wikipedia 2012b). Alexander placed significant emphasis on the pattern role of reconciling and resolving competing
forces, which is an important application of the yin yang principle.
Other examples of general patterns in both natural and engineered systems include: conventional designs in
engineering handbooks, complex system models such as evolution and predator-prey models that apply to multiple
application domains, domain taxonomies, architecture frameworks, standards, templates, architecture styles,
reference architectures, product lines, abstract data types, and classes in class hierarchies (Hybertson 2009). Shaw
and Garlan (Garlan 1996) used the terms pattern and style interchangeably in discussing software architecture.
Lehmann and Belady (Lehmann 1985) examined a set of engineered software systems and tracked their change over
time and observed regularities that they captured as evolution laws or patterns.
Patterns have been combined with model-based systems engineering (MBSE) to lead to pattern-based systems
engineering (PBSE) (Schindel and Smith 2002, Schindel 2005).
Patterns also exist in systems practice, both science and engineering. At the highest level, Gregory (1966) defined
science and design as behavior patterns:
The scientific method is a pattern of problem-solving behavior employed in finding out the nature of
what exists, whereas the design method is a pattern of behavior employed in inventing things of value
which do not yet exist.
Regularities exist not only as positive solutions to recurring problems, but also as patterns of failure, i.e., as
commonly attempted solutions that consistently fail to solve recurring problems. In software engineering these are
called antipatterns, originally coined and defined by Koenig (1995). An antipattern is just like a pattern, except that
instead of a solution it gives something that looks superficially like a solution but isn’t one. Koenig’s rationale was
that if one does not know how to solve a problem, it may nevertheless be useful to know about likely blind alleys.
Antipatterns may include patterns of pathologies (i.e., common diseases), common impairment of normal
functioning, and basic recurring problematic situations. These antipatterns can be used to help identify the root cause
of a problem and eventually lead to solution patterns. The concept was expanded beyond software to include project
management, organization, and other antipatterns (Brown et al. 1998; AntiPatterns Catalog 2012).
Patterns are grouped in the remainder of this section into basic foundational patterns and antipatterns (or patterns of
failure).
Basic Foundational Patterns

The basic patterns in this section consist of a set of hierarchy and network patterns, followed by a set of metapatterns
and SE patterns.
Hierarchy and Network Patterns

The first group of patterns are representative types of hierarchy patterns distinguished by the one-to-many relation
type (extended from Hybertson 2009, 90), as shown in the table below. These are presented first because hierarchy
patterns infuse many of the other patterns discussed in this section.
Table 1. Hierarchy Patterns. (SEBoK Original)
Relation Hierarchy Type or Pattern
Basic: Repeating One-to-Many Relation General: Tree structure
Part of a Whole Composition (or Aggregation) hierarchy
Part of + Dualism: Each element in the hierarchy is a holon, i.e., is both a Holarchy (composition hierarchy of holons) (Koestler 1967) - helps
whole that has parts and a part of a larger whole recognize similarities across levels in multi-level systems
Part of + Interchangeability: The parts are clonons, i.e., interchangeable Composition Hierarchy of Clonons (Bloom 2005). Note: This
pattern reflects horizontal similarity.
Part of + Self-Similarity: At each level, the shape or structure of the Fractal. Note: This pattern reflects vertical similarity.
whole is repeated in the parts, i.e., the hierarchy is self-similar at all
scales.
Part of + Connections or Interactions among Parts System composition hierarchy
Control of Many by One Control hierarchy—e.g., a command structure
Subtype or Sub-Class Type or specialization hierarchy; a type of generalization
Instance of Category Categorization (object-class; model-metamodel…) hierarchy; a

type of generalization
Network patterns are of two flavors. First, traditional patterns are network topology types, such as bus (common
backbone), ring, star (central hub), tree, and mesh (multiple routes) (ATIS 2008). Second, the relatively young
science of networks has been investigating social and other complex patterns, such as percolation, cascades, power
law, scale-free, small worlds, semantic networks, and neural networks (Boccara 2004; Neumann et al. 2006).
Metapatterns
The metapatterns identified and defined in the table below are from (Bloom 2005), (Volk and Bloom 2007), and
(Kappraff 1991). They describe a metapattern as convergences exhibited in the similar structures of evolved systems
across widely separated scales (Volk and Bloom 2007).
Table 2. Metapatterns. (SEBoK Original)
Name Brief Definition Examples
Spheres Shape of maximum volume, minimum Cell, planet, dome, ecosystem, community
surface, containment
Centers Key components of system stability Prototypes, purpose, causation; Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), social insect centers,
political constitutions and government, attractors
Tubes Surface transfer, connection, support Networks, lattices, conduits, relations; leaf veins, highways, chains of command
Binaries Plus Minimal and thus efficient system Contrast, duality, reflections, tensions, complementary/symmetrical/reciprocal
relationships; two sexes, two-party politics, bifurcating decision process
Clusters, Subset of webs, distributed systems of Bird flocks, ungulate herds, children playing, egalitarian social groups
Clustering parts with mutual attractions
Webs or Parts in relationships within systems (can Subsystems of cells, organisms, ecosystems, machines, society
Networks be centered or clustered, using clonons or
holons)
Sheets Transfer surface for matter, energy, or Films; fish gills, solar collectors
information
Borders and Protection, openings for controlled Boundaries, containers, partitions, cell membranes, national borders
Pores exchange
Layers Combination of other patterns that builds Levels of scale, parts and wholes, packing, proportions, tiling
up order, structure, and stabilization
Similarity Figures of the same shape but different Similar triangles, infant-adult
sizes
Emergence General phenomenon when a new type of Creation (birth), life from molecules, cognition from neurons
functionality derives from binaries or
webs.
Holarchies Levels of webs, in which successive Biological nesting from biomolecules to ecosystems, human social nesting,
systems are parts of larger systems engineering designs, computer software
Holons Parts of systems as functionally unique Heart-lungs-liver (holons) of body
Clonons Parts of systems as interchangeable Skin cells (clonons) of the skin; bricks in constructing a house
Arrows Stability or gradient-like change over time Stages, sequence, orientation, stress, growth, meanders, biological homeostasis,
growth, self-maintaining social structures
Cycles Recurrent patterns in systems over time Alternating repetition, vortex, spiral, turbulence, helices, rotations; protein degradation
and synthesis, life cycles, power cycles of electricity generating plants, feedback
cycles
Breaks Relatively sudden changes in system Transformation, change, branching, explosion, cracking, translations; cell division,
behavior insect metamorphosis, coming-of-age ceremonies, political elections, bifurcation
points
Triggers Initiating agents of breaks, both internal Sperm entering egg or precipitating events of war
and external
Gradients Continuum of variation between binary Chemical waves in cell development, human quantitative and qualitative values
poles
Systems Engineering Patterns

Some work has been done on various aspects of explicitly applying patterns to SE. A review article of much of this
work was written by Bagnulo and Addison (2010), covering patterns in general, capability engineering, pattern
languages, pattern modeling, and other SE-related pattern topics. Cloutier (2005) discussed applying patterns to SE,
based on architecture and software design patterns. Haskins (2005), and Simpson and Simpson (2006) discussed the
use of SE pattern languages to enhance the adoption and use of SE patterns. Simpsons identified three high-level,
global patterns that can be used as a means of organizing systems patterns:
• Anything can be described as a system.
• The problem system is always separate from the solution system.
• Three systems, at a minimum, are always involved in any system activity: the environmental system, the product
system, and the process system.
Haskins (2008) also proposed the use of patterns as a way to facilitate the extension of SE from traditional
technological systems to address social and socio-technical systems. Some patterns have been applied and identified
in this extended arena, described as patterns of success by Rebovich and DeRosa (2012). Stevens (2010) also
discussed patterns in the engineering of large-scale, complex “mega-systems.”
A common SE activity in which patterns are applied is in system design, especially in defining one or more solution
options for a system-of-interest. See Synthesizing Possible Solutions for a discussion. The more specific topic of
using patterns (and antipatterns, as described below) to understand and exploit emergence is discussed in the
Emergence topic.
Patterns of Failure: Antipatterns
System Archetypes
The system dynamics community has developed a collection of what are called system archetypes. The concept was
originated by Forrester (1969), while Senge (1990) appears to have introduced the system archetype term. According
to Braun (2002), the archetypes describe common patterns of behavior that help answer the question, “Why do we
keep seeing the same problems recur over time?” They focus on behavior in organizations and other complex social
systems that are repeatedly but unsuccessfully used to solve recurring problems. This is why they are grouped here
under antipatterns, even though the system dynamics community does not refer to the archetypes as antipatterns. The
table below summarizes the archetypes. There is not a fixed set, or even fixed names for a given archetype. The table
shows alternative names for some archetypes.
Table 3. System Archetypes. (SEBoK Original)
Name (Alternates) Description Reference**
Counterintuitive Behavior Forrester identified three “especially dangerous” counter-intuitive behaviors of social systems, F1, F2
which correspond respectively to three of the archetypes discussed below: (1) Low-Leverage
Policies: Ineffective Actions; (2) High Leverage Policies: Often Wrongly Applied; and (3)
Long-Term vs. Short-Term Trade-offs
Low-Leverage Policies: Most intuitive policy changes in a complex system have very little leverage to create change; F1, F3, M
Ineffective Actions (Policy this is because the change causes reactions in other parts of the system that counteract the new
Resistance) policy.
High Leverage Policies: Often A system problem is often correctable with a small change, but this high-leverage solution is F1, F3, M
Wrongly Applied (High typically counter-intuitive in two ways: (1) the leverage point is difficult to find because it is
Leverage, Wrong Direction) usually far removed in time and place from where the problem appears, and (2) if the leverage
point is identified, the change is typically made in the wrong direction, thereby intensifying the
problem.
Long-Term vs. Short-Term Short-term solutions are intuitive, but in complex systems there is nearly always a conflict or F1, F3, M, S,
Trade-offs (Fixes that Fail, tradeoff between short-term and long-term goals. Thus, a quick fix produces immediate positive B
Shifting the Burden, Addiction) results, but its unforeseen and unintended long-term consequences worsen the problem.
Furthermore, a repeated quick fix approach makes it harder to change to a more fundamental
solution approach later.
Drift to Low Performance There is a strong tendency for complex system goals to drift downward. A gap between current F1, F3, M, B
(Eroding Goals, Collapse of state and goal state creates pressure to lower the goal rather than taking difficult corrective
Goals) action to reach the goal. Over time the continually lowered goals lead to crisis and possible
collapse of the system.
Official Addiction – Shifting The ability of a system to maintain itself deteriorates when an intervener provides help and the M, S
the Burden to the Intervener system then becomes dependent on the intervener.
Limits to Growth (a.k.a. Limits A reinforcing process of accelerating growth (or expansion) will encounter a balancing process S, B
to Success) as the limit of that system is approached and continuing efforts will produce diminishing returns
as one approaches the limits.
Balancing Process with Delay Delay in the response of a system to corrective action causes the correcting agent to either S
over-correct or to give up due to no visible progress.
Escalation Two systems compete for superiority, with each escalating its competitive actions to get ahead, B
to the point that both systems are harmed.
Success to the Successful Growth leads to decline elsewhere. When two equally capable systems compete for a limited S, B
resource, if one system receives more resources, it is more likely to be successful, which results
in its receiving even more resources, in a reinforcing loop.
Tragedy of the Commons A shared resource is depleted as each system abuses it for individual gain, ultimately hurting all H, S, B
who share it.
Growth and Underinvestment In a situation where capacity investments can overcome limits, if such investments are not made, S, B
then growth stalls, which then rationalizes further underinvestment.
Accidental Adversaries Two systems destroy their relationship through escalating retaliations for perceived injuries. B
Attractiveness Principle In situations where a system faces multiple limiting or impeding factors, the tendency is to B
consider each factor separately to select which one to address first, rather than a strategy based
on the interdependencies among the factors.
** B—(Braun 2002); F1—(Forrester 1969); F2—(Forrester 1995); F3—(Forrester 2009); H—(Hardin 1968);
M—(Meadows 1982); S—(Senge 1990).
Relations among system archetypes were defined by Goodman and Kleiner (1993/1994) and republished in Senge et
al. (1994).
Software and Other Antipatterns

Antipatterns have been identified and collected in the software community in areas that include: architecture,
development, project management, user interface, organization, analysis, software design, programming,
methodology, and configuration management (AntiPatterns Catalog 2012, Wikibooks 2012). A brief statement of
three of them follows; the first two are organization and the third is software design.
• Escalation of commitment - Failing to revoke a decision when it proves wrong.
• Moral hazard - Insulating a decision-maker from the consequences of his or her decision.
• Big ball of mud - A system with no recognizable structure.
A link between the software community and the system archetypes is represented in a project at the Software
Engineering Institute (SEI) (2012), which explores the system archetypes in the context of identifying recurring
software acquisition problems as “acquisition archetypes.” They refer to both types of archetypes as patterns of
failure.
Another set of antipatterns in the general systems arena has been compiled by Troncale (2010; 2011) in his systems
pathologies project. Sample pathology types or patterns include:
• Cyberpathologies - Systems-level malfunctions in feedback architectures.
• Nexopathologies - Systems-level malfunctions in network architectures or dynamics.
• Heteropathologies - Systems-level malfunctions in hierarchical, modular structure & dynamics.
Some treatments of antipatterns, including Senge (1990) and SEI (2012), also provide some advice on dealing with
or preventing the antipattern.
Patterns and Maturity

Patterns may be used as an indicator of the maturity of a domain of inquiry, such as systems science or systems
engineering. In a mature and relatively stable domain, the problems and solutions are generally understood and their
similarities are captured in a variety of what are here called patterns. A couple of observations can be made in this
regard on the maturity of systems science in support of systems engineering.
In the arenas of physical systems and technical systems, systems science is relatively mature; many system patterns
of both natural physical systems and engineered technical systems are reasonably well defined and understood.
In the arena of more complex systems, including social systems, systems science is somewhat less mature. Solution
patterns in that arena are more challenging. A pessimistic view of the possibility of science developing solutions to
social problems was expressed by Rittel and Webber (1973) in their classic paper on wicked problems: “The search
for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, because . . . they are ‘wicked’ problems,
whereas science has developed to deal with ‘tame’ problems.” A more optimistic stance toward social problems has
characterized the system dynamics community. They have been pointing out for over 40 years the problems with
conventional solutions to social problems, in the form of the system archetypes and associated feedback loop
models. That was an important first step. Nevertheless, they have had difficulty achieving the second step; producing
social patterns that can be applied to solve those problems. The antipatterns characterize problems, but the patterns
for solving those problems are elusive.
Despite the difficulties, however, social systems do exhibit regularities, and social problems are often solved to some
degree. The social sciences and complex systems community have limited sets of patterns, such as common types of
organization structures, common macro-economic models, and even patterns of insurgency and counter-insurgency.
The challenge for systems science is to capture those regularities and the salient features of those solutions more
broadly and make them explicit and available in the form of mature patterns. Then perhaps social problems can be
solved on a more regular basis. As systems engineering expands its scope from the traditional emphasis on technical
aspects of systems to the interplay of the social and technical aspects of socio-technical systems, such progress in
systems science is becoming even more important to the practice of systems engineering.
References
Works Cited
Alexander, C. 1979. The Timeless Way of Building. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl-King, and S. Angel. 1977. A Pattern Language:
Towns – Buildings – Construction. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
ATIS. 2008. ATIS Telecom Glossary 2007. Washington, D.C., USA: Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions. Available at: ATIS http:/ / www. atis. org/ glossary/ definition. aspx?id=3516. Accessed December 3,
2014.
Bagnulo, A. and T. Addison. 2010. State of the Art Report on Patterns in Systems Engineering and Capability
Engineering. Contract Report 2010-012 by CGI Group for Defence R&D Canada – Valcartier. March 2010.
Bloom, J. 2005. "The application of chaos, complexity, and emergent (meta)patterns to research in teacher
education." Proceedings of the 2004 Complexity Science and Educational Research Conference (pp. 155-191),
Chaffey’s Locks, Canada, Sep 30–Oct 3 2004. Available at: http://www.complexityandeducation.ca.
Boccara, N. 2004. Modeling Complex Systems. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag.
Braun, T. 2002. "The System Archetypes." Available at: http:/ / www. albany. edu/ faculty/ gpr/ PAD724/
724WebArticles/sys_archetypes.pdf
Brown, W., R. Malveau, H. McCormick, and T. Mowbray. 1998. AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures,
and Projects in Crisis. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Buschmann, F., R. Meunier, H. Rohnert, P. Sommerlad, and M. Stal. 1996. Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture:
A System of Patterns. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley.
Cloutier, R. 2005. "Toward the application of patterns to systems engineering." Proceedings of the Conference on
Systems Engineering Research (CSER) 2005, Hoboken, NJ, USA, March 23-25, 2005.
Forrester, J. 1969. Urban Dynamics. Waltham, MA, USA: Pegasus Communications.
Forrester, J. 1995. "Counterintuitive behavior of social systems," Technology Review, vol. 73, no. 3, Jan. 1971, pp.
52-68.
Forrester, J. 2009. Learning through System Dynamics as Preparation for the 21st Century.
Gamma, E., R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. 1995. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented
Software. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.
Goodman, G. and A. Kleiner. 1993/1994. “Using the archetype family tree as a diagnostic tool,” The Systems
Thinker, December 1993/January 1994.
Gregory, S. 1966. "Design and the design method," in S. Gregory, Ed., The Design Method. London, England:
Butterworth.
Hardin, G. 1968. "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science, vol. 162, 13 December 1968, pp. 1243-1248. DOI:
10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
Haskins, C. 2005. "Application of patterns and pattern languages to systems engineering." Proceedings of the 15th
Annual INCOSE International Symposium, Rochester, NY, USA, July 10-13, 2005.
Haskins, C. 2008. "Using patterns to transition systems engineering from a technological to social context," Systems
Engineering, vol. 11, no. 2, May 2008, pp. 147-155.
Kappraff, J. 1991. Connections: The Geometric Bridge between Art and Science. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill.
Koenig, A. 1995. "Patterns and antipatterns," Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, vol. 8, no. 1, March/April
1995, pp. 46–48.
Koestler, A. 1967. The Ghost in the Machine. New York, NY, USA: Macmillan.
Lehmann, M. and L. Belady. 1985. Program Evolution. London, England: Academic Press.
Meadows, D. 1982. “Whole Earth Models and Systems,” The Co-Evolution Quarterly, Summer 1982, pp. 98-108.
Odum, H. 1994. Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology (Revised Edition). Boulder,
CO, USA: University Press of Colorado.
Rebovich, G. and J. DeRosa. 2012. "Patterns of success in systems engineering of IT-intensive government
systems," Procedia Computer Science, vol. 8, 2012, pp. 303 – 308.
Rittel, H. and M. Webber. 1973. "Dilemmas in a general theory of planning," Policy Sciences, vol. 4, pp. 155–169.
Schindel, W. 2005. "Pattern-based systems engineering: An extension of model-based systems engineering,"
INCOSE TIES tutorial presented at 2005 INCOSE Symposium, Rochester, NY, USA, 10-15 July 2005.
Schindel, W. and V. Smith. 2002. Results of Applying a Families-of-Systems Approach to Systems Engineering of
Product Line Families. Technical Report 2002-01-3086. SAE International.
SEI 2012. Patterns of Failure: System Archetypes. Available at: SEI http:/ / www. sei. cmu. edu/ acquisition/
research/pofsa.cfm.Accessed December 3, 2014.
Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York,
NY, USA: Currency Doubleday.
Senge, P., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts and R. Ross. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for
Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Currency Doubleday.
Shaw, M. and D. Garlan. 1996. Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Simpson, J. and M. Simpson. 2006. "Foundational systems engineering patterns for a SE pattern language,"
Proceedings of the 16th Annual INCOSE Symposium, Orlando, FL, USA, July 2006.
Stevens, R. 2011. Engineering Mega-Systems: The Challenge of Systems Engineering in the Information Age. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: Auerbach/Taylor & Francis.
Troncale, L. 2010. "Would a rigorous knowledge base in “systems pathology” add to the S.E. portfolio?" Presented at
2010 LA Mini-Conference, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, 16 October 2010.
Troncale, L. 2011. “Would a rigorous knowledge base in systems pathology add significantly to the SE portfolio?"
Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), Redondo Beach, CA, April 14-16.
Volk, T., and J.W. Bloom. 2007. "The use of metapatterns for research into complex systems of teaching, learning,
and schooling. Part I: Metapatterns in nature and culture," Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and
Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 25—43.
Wikibooks. 2012a. "AntiPatterns." Available at: http:/ / en. wikibooks. org/ wiki/
Introduction_to_Software_Engineering/Architecture/Anti-Patterns.
Wikipedia. 2012b. "Software Design Pattern." Available at: http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/
Software_design_pattern.
Primary References
Alexander, C. 1979. The Timeless Way of Building. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
NY, USA: Braziller.
Bloom, J. 2005. "The application of chaos, complexity, and emergent (meta)patterns to research in teacher
education." Proceedings of the 2004 Complexity Science and Educational Research Conference (pp. 155-191),
Chaffey’s Locks, Canada, Sep 30–Oct 3, 2004. Available at: http://www.complexityandeducation.ca.
Principia Cybernetica. 1996. Cybernetics and Systems Theory. Available at: http:/ / pespmc1. vub. ac. be/
CYBSYSTH.html.Accessed 21 April 2013.
Erl, T. 2009. SOA: Design Patterns. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Erl, T. 2008. SOA: Principles of Service Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Francois, F., Ed.. 2004. International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, 2nd ed. Munich, Germany: K. G.
Saur Verlag.
Meyers, R. Ed. 2009. Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Midgley, G. Ed. 2003. Systems Thinking. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Principia Cybernetica Web. 2013. "Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems." Available at: http:/ / pespmc1.
vub.ac.be/ASC/indexASC.html.Accessed 21 April 2013.
Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article >

185
Knowledge Area: Representing Systems

with Models
Representing Systems with Models

Lead Author: Sanford Friedenthal, Contributing Authors: Dov Dori, Yaniv Mordecai
A model is a simplified representation of a system at some particular point in time or space intended to promote
understanding of the real system. As an abstraction of a system, it offers insight about one or more of the system's
aspects, such as its function, structure, properties, performance, behavior, or cost.
Overview
The modeling of systems as holistic, value-providing entities has been gaining recognition as a central process of
systems engineering. The use of modeling and simulation during the early stages of the system design of complex
systems and architectures can:
• document system functions and requirements,
• assess the mission performance,
• estimate costs,
• evaluate tradeoffs, and
• provide insights to improve performance, reduce risk, and manage costs.
Modeling and analysis can complement testing and evaluations which occur later in the life cycle. In some systems,
modeling and simulation may be the only way to fully evaluate performance (e.g., ballistic missile defense) or to
evaluate system performance in severe scenarios (e.g., response to weapons of mass destruction attacks on the
homeland). Furthermore, advanced simulations, e.g. flight simulators, and command and control center simulations,
can be a cost-effective technique for personnel training in accompaniment with operational system training
(INCOSE 2012).
Modeling serves to make concepts concrete and formal, enhance quality, productivity, documentation, and
innovation, as well as to reduce the cost and risk of systems development.
Modeling occurs at many levels: component, subsystem, system, and systems-of-systems; and throughout the life
cycle of a system. Different types of models may be needed to represent systems in support of the analysis,
specification, design, and verification of systems. This knowledge area provides an overview of models used to
represent different aspects of systems.
Modeling is a common practice that is shared by most engineering disciplines, including:
• electrical engineering, which uses electrical circuit design models
• mechanical engineering, which uses three-dimensional computer-aided design models
• software engineering, which uses software design and architecture models.
Each of these disciplines has its own language with its syntax and semantics, serving as a means of communication
among professionals in that discipline. Analytic models are used to support power, thermal, structural, and embedded
real-time analysis.
Modeling Standards play an important role in defining system modeling concepts that can be represented for a
particular domain of interest and enable the integration of different types of models across domains of interest.
Topics
Each part of the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) is divided into knowledge areas
(KAs), which are groupings of information with a related theme. The KAs, in turn, are divided into topics. This KA
contains the following topics:
• What is a Model?
• Why Model?
• Types of Models
• System Modeling Concepts
• Integrating Supporting Aspects into System Models
• Modeling Standards
References
Works Cited
3.2.2. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE),
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Primary References
Dori, D. 2002. Object-Process Methodology – A Holistic Systems Paradigm. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Estefan, J. 2008. A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies, rev, B. Seattle, WA, USA:
International Council on Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02. Available at: http:/ / www. omgsysml.
org/MBSE_Methodology_Survey_RevB.pdf.Accessed April 13, 2015.
Friedenthal, S., A. Moore, R. Steiner, and M. Kaufman. 2012. A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling
Language, 2nd Edition. Needham, MA, USA: OMG Press.
Guizzardi, G. 2007. “On ontology, ontologies, conceptualizations, modeling languages, and (meta)models,”
Proceedings of the Databases and Information Systems IV Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Available at: ACM
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1565425.Accessed December 4 2014.
INCOSE. 2007. Systems Engineering Vision 2020. Seattle, WA, USA: International Council on Systems
Engineering. September 2007. INCOSE-TP-2004-004-02.
Wymore, A.W. 1993. Model-Based Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Inc.
Holt, J. and S. Perry. 2008. SysML for Systems Engineering. Stevenage, UK: Institution of Engineering and
Technology. Available at: Ebrary http://site.ebrary.com/id/10263845.Accessed December 4 2014.
Grobshtein, Y. and D. Dori. 2011. "Generating SysML views from an OPM model: Design and evaluation," Systems
Engineering, vol. 14, no. 3, Sept.
West, P., J. Kobza, and S. Goerger. 2011. "Chapter 4, systems modeling and analysis," in Parnell, G.S., P.J. Driscoll,
and D.L Henderson Eds., Decision Making for Systems Engineering and Management, 2nd ed. Wiley Series in
Systems Engineering. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley & Sons Inc.

What is a Model?
This topic provides foundational concepts, such as definitions of a model and a modeling language, and expresses
their relationships to modeling tools and model-based systems engineering (MBSE).
Definition of a Model
There are many definitions of the word model. The following definitions refer to a model as a representation of
selected aspects of a domain of interest to the modeler:
• a physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process (DoD
1998);
• a representation of one or more concepts that may be realized in the physical world (Friedenthal, Moore, and
Steiner 2009);
• a simplified representation of a system at some particular point in time or space intended to promote
understanding of the real system (Bellinger 2004);
• an abstraction of a system, aimed at understanding, communicating, explaining, or designing aspects of interest of
that system (Dori 2002); and
• a selective representation of some system whose form and content are chosen based on a specific set of concerns;
the model is related to the system by an explicit or implicit mapping (Object Management Group 2010).
In the context of systems engineering, a model that represents a system and its environment is of particular
importance to the system engineer who must specify, design, analyze, and verify systems, as well as share
information with other stakeholders. A variety of system models are used to represent different types of systems for
different modeling purposes. Some of the purposes for modeling systems are summarized in the topic Why Model?,
and a simple taxonomy of the different types of models are described in the topic Types of Models. The modeling
standards topic refers to some of the standard system modeling languages and other modeling standards that support
MBSE.
A model can have different forms as indicated in the first definition above, including a physical, mathematical, or
logical representation. A physical model can be a mockup that represents an actual system, such as a model airplane.
A mathematical model may represent possible flight trajectories in terms of acceleration, speed, position, and
orientation. A logical model may represent logical relationships that describe potential causes of airplane failure,
such as how an engine failure can result in a loss of power and cause the airplane to lose altitude, or how the parts of
the system are interconnected. It is apparent that many different models may be required to represent a
system-of-interest (SoI).
Modeling Language
A physical model is a concrete representation of an actual system that can be felt and touched. Other models may be
more abstract representations of a system or entity. These models rely on a modeling language to express their
meaning as explained in “On Ontology, Ontologies, Conceptualizations, Modeling Languages, and (Meta)Models”
(Guizzardi 2007).
Just as engineering drawings express the 3D structure of mechanical and architectural designs, conceptual models
are the means by which systems are conceived, architected, designed, and built. The resulting models are the
counterparts of the mechanical design blueprint. However, the difference is that, while blueprints are exact
representations of physical artifacts with a precise, agreed-upon syntax and long tradition of serving as a means of
communication among professionals, conceptual models are just beginning to make headway toward being a
complete and unambiguous representation of a system under development. The articles in the special section of
Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) (Dori 2003) present the abstract world of
systems analysis and architecting by means of conceptual modeling, and how to evaluate, select, and construct
models.
Modeling languages are generally intended to be both human-interpretable and computer-interpretable, and are
specified in terms of both syntax and semantics.
The abstract syntax specifies the model constructs and the rules for constructing the model. In the case of a natural
language like English, the constructs may include types of words such as verbs, nouns, adjectives, and prepositions,
and the rules specify how these words can be used together to form proper sentences. The abstract syntax for a
mathematical model may specify constructs to define mathematical functions, variables, and their relationships. The
abstract syntax for a logical model may also specify constructs to define logical entities and their relationships. A
well-formed model abides by the rules of construction, just as a well-formed sentence must conform to the
grammatical rules of the natural language.
The concrete syntax specifies the symbols used to express the model constructs. The natural language English can be
expressed in text or Morse code. A modeling language may be expressed using graphical symbols and/or text
statements. For example, a functional flow model may be expressed using graphical symbols consisting of a
combination of graphical nodes and arcs annotated with text, while a simulation modeling language may be
expressed using a programming language text syntax such as the C programming language.
The semantics of a language define the meaning of the constructs. For example, an English word does not have
explicit meaning until the word is defined. Similarly, a construct that is expressed as a symbol, such as a box or
arrow on a flow chart, does not have meaning until it is defined. The language must give meaning to the concept of a
verb or noun, and must give specific meaning to a specific word that is a verb or noun. The definition can be
established by providing a natural language definition or by mapping the construct to a formalism whose meaning is
defined. As an example, a graphical symbol that expresses sin(x) and cos(x) is defined using a well-defined
mathematical formalism for the sine and cosine function. If the position of a pendulum is defined in terms of sin(θ)
and cos(θ), the meaning of the pendulum position is understood in terms of these formalisms.
Modeling Tools
Models are created by a modeler using modeling tools. For physical models, the modeling tools may include drills,
lathes, and hammers. For more abstract models, the modeling tools are typically software programs running on a
computer. These programs provide the ability to express modeling constructs using a particular modeling language.
A word processor can be viewed as a tool used to build text descriptions using natural language. In a similar way,
modeling tools are used to build models using modeling languages. The tool often provides a tool palette to select
symbols and a content area to construct the model from the graphical symbols or other concrete syntax. A modeling
tool typically checks the model to evaluate whether it conforms to the rules of the language and enforces such rules
to help the modeler create a well-formed model. This is similar to the way a word processor checks the text to see
that it conforms to the grammar rules for the natural language.
Some modeling tools are commercially available products, while others may be created or customized to provide
unique modeling solutions. Modeling tools are often used as part of a broader set of engineering tools which
constitute the systems development environment. There is increased emphasis on tool support for standard modeling
languages that enable models and modeling information to be interchanged among different tools.
Relationship of Model to Model-Based Systems Engineering

The International Council of Systems Engineering (INCOSE) (INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2020 2007)
defines MBSE as “the formalized application of modeling to support system requirements, design, analysis,
verification, and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout
development and later life cycle phases.” In MBSE, the models of the system are primary artifacts of the systems
engineering process, and are managed, controlled, and integrated with other parts of the system technical baseline.
This contrasts with the traditional document-centric approach to systems engineering, where text-based
documentation and specifications are managed and controlled. Leveraging a model-based approach to systems
engineering is intended to result in significant improvements in system specification and design quality, lower risk
and cost of system development by surfacing issues early in the design process, enhanced productivity through reuse
of system artifacts, and improved communications among the system development and implementation teams.
In addition to creating models, the MBSE approach typically includes methods for model management, which aim to
ensure that models are properly controlled, and methods for model validation, which aim to ensure that models
accurately represent the systems being modeled.
The jointly sponsored INCOSE/Object Management Group (OMG) MBSE Wiki [1] provides additional information
on the INCOSE MBSE Initiative, including some applications of MBSE and some key topics related to MBSE such
as sections on Methodology and Metrics, and Model Management.
The Final Report of the Model Based Engineering (MBE) Subcommittee, which was generated by the the National
Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Modeling and Simulation Committee of the Systems Engineering Division,
highlights many of the benefits, risks, and challenges of a model-based approach, and includes many references to
case studies of MBE (NDIA 2011).
Brief History of System Modeling Languages and Methods

Many system modeling methods and associated modeling languages have been developed and deployed to support
various aspects of system analysis, design, and implementation. Functional modeling languages include the data flow
diagram (DFD) (Yourdon and Constantine 1979), Integration Definition for Functional Modeling (IDEF0) (Menzel
and Maier 1998), and enhanced functional flow block diagram (eFFBD). Other behavioral modeling techniques
include the classical state transition diagram, statecharts (Harel 1987), and process flow diagrams. Structural
modeling techniques include data structure diagrams (Jackson 1975), entity relationship diagrams (Chen 1976), and
object modeling techniques (Rumbaugh et al. 1991), which combine object diagrams, DFDs, and statecharts.
In 2008, Estefan conducted an extensive survey of system modeling methods, processes, and tools and documented
the results in A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies (Estefan 2008). This survey
identifies several candidate MBSE methodologies and modeling languages that can be applied to support an MBSE
approach. Additional modeling methods are available from the MBSE Wiki [1] under the section on Methodology
and Metrics [2]. The modeling standards section refers to some of the standard system modeling languages and other
modeling standards that support MBSE. Since Estefan's report, a number of surveys have been conducted to
understand the acceptance and barriers to model-based systems engineering (Bone and Cloutier 2010, 2014; Cloutier
2015).
References
Works Cited
Bellinger, G. 2004. "Modeling & simulation: An introduction," in Mental Model Musings. Available at: http:/ /
www.systems-thinking.org/modsim/modsim.htm.
Bone, M. & Cloutier, R. 2010. “The current state of model based systems engineering: Results from the OMG™
SysML request for information 2009.” 8h Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Hoboken, NJ, USA, March
17-19, 2010, Paper #1569270919. Available at http:/ / www. omgsysml. org/
SysML_2009_RFI_Response_Summary-bone-cloutier.pdf.Accessed May 26, 2019.
Cloutier, R. & Bone, M. 2014. “MBSE survey,” Presented January 2015 INCOSE IW, Los Angeles, CA. Available
at: http:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ lib/ exe/ fetch.
php?media=mbse:incose_mbse_survey_results_initial_report_2015_01_24.pdf.Accessed May 26, 2019.
Cloutier, R. 2015. “Current modeling trends in systems engineering,” INCOSE Insight, vol. 18, no. 2.
Chen, P. 1976. "The entity relationship model – Toward a unifying view of data," ACM Transactions on Data Base
Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9-36.
DoD. 1998. "'DoD modeling and simulation (M&S) glossary," in DoD Manual 5000.59-M. Arlington, VA, USA: US
Department of Defense. January. P2.13.22. Available at http:/ / www. dtic. mil/ whs/ directives/ corres/ pdf/
500059m.pdf.
Dori, D. 2002. Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic System Paradigm. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Dori, D. 2003. "Conceptual modeling and system architecting," Communications of the ACM, vol. 46, no. 10, pp.
62-65. Available at: http://esml.iem.technion.ac.il/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/article169.pdf.
Estefan, J. 2008. A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies, rev. B, Seattle, WA, USA:
International Council on Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02.
Guizzardi, G. 2007. "On ontology, ontologies, conceptualizations, modeling languages, and (meta)models,"
Proceedings of Seventh International Baltic Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Available at: http:/ / portal.
acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1565425.
Harel, D. 1987. "Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems," Science of Computer Programming, vol. 8,
no. 3, pp. 231–74.
Jackson, M.A. 1975. Principles of Program Design. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press.
Menzel, C. and R.J. Mayer. 1998. "The IDEF family of languages" in P. Bernus, K. Mertins, and G. Schmidt, Eds.
Handbook on Architectures for Information Systems. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 209-241.
OMG. 2010. MDA Foundation Model. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management Group. ORMSC/2010-09-06.
Rumbaugh, J., M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorenson. 1990. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Press, Y. and L.L. Constantine. 1976. Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and
Systems Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Yourdon E. and Constantine L.L. 1973. Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and
Systems Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1st Edition.
Primary References
Estefan, J. 2008. A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies, Rev. B. San Diego, CA,
USA: International Council on Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02. Available at: http:/ / www. incose.
org/ProductsPubs/pdf/techdata/MTTC/MBSE_Methodology_Survey_2008-0610_RevB-JAE2.pdf.
Proceedings of Seventh International Baltic Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Available at: http:/ / portal.
acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1565425.
NDIA. 2011. Final Report of the Model Based Engineering (MBE) Subcommittee. Arlington, VA, USA: National
Defense Industrial Association. Available at: http:/ / www. ndia. org/ Divisions/ Divisions/ SystemsEngineering/
Documents/ Committees/ M_S%20Committee/ Reports/
MBE_Final_Report_Document_(2011-04-22)_Marked_Final_Draft.pdf
Downs, E., P. Clare, and I. Coe. 1992. Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method: Application and Context.
Hertfordshire, UK: Prentice-Hall International.
Eisner, H. 1988. Computer-Aided Systems Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Harel, D. 1987. "Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems," Science of Computer Programming, vol. 8,
no. 3, pp. 231–74.
Kossiakoff, A. and W. Sweet. 2003. "Chapter 14," in Systems Engineering Principles and Practice. New York, NY,
USA: Wiley and Sons.
OMG. "MBSE Wiki." Object Management Group (OMG). Available at: http:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ doku.
php.Accessed 11 September 2011.
Oliver, D., T. Kelliber, and J. Keegan. 1997. Engineering Complex Systems with Models and Objects. New York,
NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.

References
[1] http:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ doku. php
[2] http:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ doku. php?id=mbse:methodology
Why Model? 192
Why Model?
System models can be used for many purposes. This topic highlights some of those purposes, and provides indicators
of an effective model in the context of model-based systems engineering (MBSE).
Purpose of a Model
Models are representations that can aid in defining, analyzing, and communicating a set of concepts. System models
are specifically developed to support analysis, specification, design, verification, and validation of a system, as well
as to communicate certain information. One of the first principles of modeling is to clearly define the purpose of the
model. Some of the purposes that models can serve throughout the system life cycle are:
• Characterizing an existing system: Many existing systems are poorly documented and modeling the system can
provide a concise way to capture the existing system design. This information can then be used to facilitate
system maintenance or to assess the system with the goal of improving it. This is analogous to creating an
architectural model of an old building with overlays for electrical, plumbing, and structure before proceeding to
upgrade it to new standards to withstand earthquakes.
• Mission and system concept formulation and evaluation: Models can be applied early in the system life cycle
to synthesize and evaluate alternative mission and system concepts. This includes clearly and unambiguously
defining the system's mission and the value it is expected to deliver to its beneficiaries. Models can be used to
explore a trade-space by modeling alternative system designs and assessing the impact of critical system
parameters such as weight, speed, accuracy, reliability, and cost on the overall measures of merit. In addition to
bounding the system design parameters, models can also be used to validate that the system requirements meet
stakeholder needs before proceeding with later life cycle activities such as synthesizing the detailed system
design.
• System design synthesis and requirements flowdown: Models can be used to support architecting system
solutions, as well as flow mission and system requirements down to system components. Different models may be
required to address different aspects of the system design and respond to the broad range of system requirements.
This may include models that specify functional, interface, performance, and physical requirements, as well as
other non-functional requirements such as reliability, maintainability, safety, and security.
• Support for system integration and verification: Models can be used to support integration of the hardware and
software components into a system, as well as to support verification that the system satisfies its requirements.
This often involves integrating lower level hardware and software design models with system-level design models
which verify that system requirements are satisfied. System integration and verification may also include
replacing selected hardware and design models with actual hardware and software products in order to
incrementally verify that system requirements are satisfied. This is referred to as hardware-in-the-loop testing and
software-in-the-loop testing. Models can also be used to define the test cases (glossary) and other aspects of the
test program to assist in test planning and execution.
• Support for training: Models can be used to simulate various aspects of the system to help train users to interact
with the system. Users may be operators, maintainers, or other stakeholders. Models may be a basis for
developing a simulator of the system with varying degrees of fidelity to represent user interaction in different
usage scenarios.
• Knowledge capture and system design evolution: Models can provide an effective means for capturing
knowledge about the system and retaining it as part of organizational knowledge. This knowledge, which can be
reused and evolved, provides a basis for supporting the evolution of the system, such as changing system
requirements in the face of emerging, relevant technologies, new applications, and new customers. Models can
Why Model? 193
also enable the capture of families of products.
Indicators of an Effective Model

When modeling is done well, a model’s purposes are clear and well-defined. The value of a model can be assessed in
terms of how effectively it supports those purposes. The remainder of this section and the topics Types of Models,
System Modeling Concepts, and Modeling Standards describe indicators of an effective model (Friedenthal, Moore,
and Steiner 2012).
Model Scope
The model must be scoped to address its intended purpose. In particular, the types of models and associated
modeling languages selected must support the specific needs to be met. For example, suppose models are
constructed to support an aircraft’s development. A system architecture model may describe the interconnection
among the airplane parts, a trajectory analysis model may analyze the airplane trajectory, and a fault tree analysis
model may assess potential causes of airplane failure.
For each type of model, the appropriate breadth, depth, and fidelity should be determined to address the model’s
intended purpose. The model breadth reflects the system requirements coverage in terms of the degree to which the
model must address the functional, interface, performance, and physical requirements, as well as other
non-functional requirements, such as reliability, maintainability, and safety. For an airplane functional model, the
model breadth may be required to address some or all of the functional requirements to power up, take off, fly, land,
power down, and maintain the aircraft’s environment.
The model’s depth indicates the coverage of system decomposition from the system context down to the system
components. For the airplane example, a model’s scope may require it to define the system context, ranging from the
aircraft, the control tower, and the physical environment, down to the navigation subsystem and its components, such
as the inertial measurement unit; and perhaps down to lower-level parts of the inertial measurement unit.
The model’s fidelity indicates the level of detail the model must represent for any given part of the model. For
example, a model that specifies the system interfaces may be fairly abstract and represent only the logical
information content, such as aircraft status data; or it may be much more detailed to support higher fidelity
information, such as the encoding of a message in terms of bits, bytes, and signal characteristics. Fidelity can also
refer to the precision of a computational model, such as the time step required for a simulation.
Indicators of Model Quality

The quality of a model should not be confused with the quality of the design that the model represents. For example,
one may have a high-quality, computer-aided design model of a chair that accurately represents the design of the
chair, yet the design itself may be flawed such that when one sits in the chair, it falls apart. A high quality model
should provide a representation sufficient to assist the design team in assessing the quality of the design and
uncovering design issues.
Model quality is often assessed in terms of the adherence of the model to modeling guidelines and the degree to
which the model addresses its intended purpose. Typical examples of modeling guidelines include naming
conventions, application of appropriate model annotations, proper use of modeling constructs, and applying model
reuse considerations. Specific guidelines are different for different types of models. For example, the guidelines for
developing a geometric model using a computer-aided design tool may include conventions for defining coordinate
systems, dimensioning, and tolerances.
Why Model? 194
Model-Based Metrics
Models can provide a wealth of information that can be used for both technical and management metrics to assess
the modeling effort, and, in some cases, the overall systems engineering (SE) effort. Different types of models
provide different types of information. In general, models provide information that enables one to:
• assess progress;
• estimate effort and cost;
• assess technical quality and risk; and
• assess model quality.
Models can capture metrics similar to those captured in a traditional document-based approach to systems
engineering, but potentially with more precision given the more accurate nature of models compared to documents.
Traditional systems engineering metrics are described in Metrics Guidebook for Integrated Systems and Product
Development (Wilbur 2005).
A model’s progress can be assessed in terms of the completeness of the modeling effort relative to the defined scope
of the model. Models may also be used to assess progress in terms of the extent to which the requirements have been
satisfied by the design or verified through testing. When augmented with productivity metrics, the model can be used
to estimate the cost of performing the required systems engineering effort to deliver the system.
Models can be used to identify critical system parameters and assess technical risks in terms of any uncertainty that
lies in those parameters. The models can also be used to provide additional metrics that are associated with its
purpose. For example, when the model’s purpose is to support mission and system concept formulation and
evaluation, then a key metric may be the number of alternative concepts that are explored over a specified period of
time.
References
Works Cited
Wilbur, A., G. Towers, T. Sherman, D. Yasukawa, and S. Shreve. 2005. Metrics Guidebook for Integrated Systems
and Product Development. Seattle, WA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
INCOSE-TP-1995-002-01.
Primary References
Wilbur, A., G. Towers, T. Sherman, D. Yasukawa, and S. Shreve. 2005. Metrics Guidebook for Integrated Systems
and Product Development. Seattle, WA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
INCOSE-TP-1995-002-01. Accessed April 13 at https:/ / www. incose. org/ ProductsPublications/ techpublications/
GuideMetrics
Why Model? 195
None.

Types of Models
There are many different types of models expressed in a diverse array of modeling languages and tool sets. This
article offers a taxonomy of model types and highlights how different models must work together to support broader
engineering efforts.
Model Classification
There are many different types of models and associated modeling languages to address different aspects of a system
and different types of systems. Since different models serve different purposes, a classification of models can be
useful for selecting the right type of model for the intended purpose and scope.
Formal versus Informal Models

Since a system model is a representation of a system, many different expressions that vary in degrees of formalism
could be considered models. In particular, one could draw a picture of a system and consider it a model. Similarly,
one could write a description of a system in text and refer to that as a model. Both examples are representations of a
system. However, unless there is some agreement on the meaning of the terms, there is a potential lack of precision
and the possibility of ambiguity in the representation.
The primary focus of system modeling is to use models supported by a well-defined modeling language. While less
formal representations can be useful, a model must meet certain expectations for it to be considered within the scope
of model-based systems engineering (MBSE). In particular, the initial classification distinguishes between informal
and formal models as supported by a modeling language with a defined syntax and the semantics for the relevant
domain of interest.
Physical Models versus Abstract Models

The United States “Department of Defense Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Glossary” asserts that “a model can be
[a] physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system” (1998). This definition provides a
starting point for a high-level model classification. A physical model is a concrete representation that is distinguished
from the mathematical and logical models, both of which are more abstract representations of the system. The
abstract model can be further classified as descriptive (similar to logical) or analytical (similar to mathematical).
Some example models are shown in Figure 1.
Types of Models 196
Figure 1. Model-Based Systems Engineering (Paredis 2011). Reprinted with permission of Chris Paredis from Georgia Tech. All other rights
are reserved by the copyright owner.
Descriptive Models
A descriptive model describes logical relationships, such as the system's whole-part relationship that defines its parts
tree, the interconnection between its parts, the functions that its components perform, or the test cases that are used
to verify the system requirements. Typical descriptive models may include those that describe the functional or
physical architecture of a system, or the three-dimensional geometric representation of a system.
Analytical Models
An analytical model describes mathematical relationships, such as differential equations that support quantifiable
analysis about the system parameters. Analytical models can be further classified into dynamic and static models.
Dynamic models describe the time-varying state of a system, whereas static models perform computations that do
not represent the time-varying state of a system. A dynamic model may represent the performance of a system, such
as the aircraft position, velocity, acceleration, and fuel consumption over time. A static model may represent the
mass properties estimate or reliability prediction of a system or component.
Types of Models 197
Hybrid Descriptive and Analytical Models

A particular model may include descriptive and analytical aspects as described above, but models may favor one
aspect or the other. The logical relationships of a descriptive model can also be analyzed, and inferences can be made
to reason about the system. Nevertheless, logical analysis provides different insights than a quantitative analysis of
system parameters.
Domain-Specific Models
Both descriptive and analytical models can be further classified according to the domain that they represent. The
following classifications are partially derived from the presentation on OWL, Ontologies and SysML Profiles:
Knowledge Representation and Modeling (Web Ontology Language (OWL) & Systems Modeling Language
(SysML)) (Jenkins 2010):
• properties of the system, such as performance, reliability, mass properties, power, structural, or thermal models;
• design and technology implementations, such as electrical, mechanical, and software design models;
• subsystems and products, such as communications, fault management, or power distribution models; and
• system applications, such as information systems, automotive systems, aerospace systems, or medical device
models.
The model classification, terminology and approach are often adapted to a particular application domain. For
example, when modeling an organization or business, the behavioral model may be referred to as a workflow or
process model, and the performance modeling may refer to the cost and schedule performance associated with the
organization or business process.
A single model may include multiple domain categories from the above list. For example, a reliability, thermal,
and/or power model may be defined for an electrical design of a communications subsystem for an aerospace
system, such as an aircraft or satellite.
System Models
System models can be hybrid models that are both descriptive and analytical. They often span several modeling
domains that must be integrated to ensure a consistent and cohesive system representation. As such, the system
model must provide both general-purpose system constructs and domain-specific constructs that are shared across
modeling domains. A system model may comprise multiple views to support planning, requirements, design,
analysis, and verification.
Wayne Wymore is credited with one of the early efforts to formally define a system model using a mathematical
framework in A Mathematical Theory of Systems Engineering: The Elements (Wymore 1967). Wymore established a
rigorous mathematical framework for designing systems in a model-based context. A summary of his work can be
found in A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies.
Simulation versus Model

The term simulation, or more specifically computer simulation, refers to a method for implementing a model over
time (DoD 1998). The computer simulation includes the analytical model which is represented in executable code,
the input conditions and other input data, and the computing infrastructure. The computing infrastructure includes
the computational engine needed to execute the model, as well as input and output devices. The great variety of
approaches to computer simulation is apparent from the choices that the designer of a computer simulation must
make, which include:
• stochastic or deterministic;
• steady-state or dynamic;
• continuous or discrete; and
Types of Models 198
• local or distributed.
Other classifications of a simulation may depend on the type of model that is being simulated. One example is an
agent-based simulation that simulates the interaction among autonomous agents to predict complex emergent
behavior (Barry 2009). There are many other types of models that could be used to further classify simulations. In
general, simulations provide a means for analyzing complex dynamic behavior of systems, software, hardware,
people, and physical phenomena.
Simulations are often integrated with the actual hardware, software, and operators of the system to evaluate how
actual components and users of the system perform in a simulated environment. Within the United States defense
community, it is common to refer to simulations as live, virtual, or constructive, where live simulation refers to live
operators operating real systems, virtual simulation refers to live operators operating simulated systems, and
constructive simulations refers to simulated operators operating with simulated systems. The virtual and constructive
simulations may also include actual system hardware and software in the loop as well as stimulus from a real
systems environment.
In addition to representing the system and its environment, the simulation must provide efficient computational
methods for solving the equations. Simulations may be required to operate in real time, particularly if there is an
operator in the loop. Other simulations may be required to operate much faster than real time and perform thousands
of simulation runs to provide statistically valid simulation results. Several computational and other simulation
methods are described in Simulation Modeling and Analysis (Law 2007).
Visualization
Computer simulation results and other analytical results often need to be processed so they can be presented to the
users in a meaningful way. Visualization techniques and tools are used to display the results in various visual forms,
such as a simple plot of the state of the system versus time to display a parametric relationship. Another example of
this occurs when the input and output values from several simulation executions are displayed on a response surface
showing the sensitivity of the output to the input. Additional statistical analysis of the results may be performed to
provide probability distributions for selected parameter values. Animation is often used to provide a virtual
representation of the system and its dynamic behavior. For example, animation can display an aircraft’s
three-dimensional position and orientation as a function of time, as well as project the aircraft’s path on the surface
of the Earth as represented by detailed terrain maps.
Integration of Models
Many different types of models may be developed as artifacts of a MBSE effort. Many other domain-specific models
are created for component design and analysis. The different descriptive and analytical models must be integrated in
order to fully realize the benefits of a model-based approach. The role of MBSE as the models integrate across
multiple domains is a primary theme in the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) INCOSE
Systems Engineering Vision 2020 (INCOSE 2007).
As an example, system models can be used to specify the components of the system. The descriptive model of the
system architecture may be used to identify and partition the components of the system and define their
interconnection or other relationships. Analytical models for performance, physical, and other quality characteristics,
such as reliability, may be employed to determine the required values for specific component properties to satisfy the
system requirements. An executable system model that represents the interaction of the system components may be
used to validate that the component requirements can satisfy the system behavioral requirements. The descriptive,
analytical, and executable system models each represent different facets of the same system.
The component designs must satisfy the component requirements that are specified by the system models. As a
result, the component design and analysis models must have some level of integration to ensure that the design
Types of Models 199
model is traceable to the requirements model. The different design disciplines for electrical, mechanical, and
software each create their own models representing different facets of the same system. It is evident that the different
models must be sufficiently integrated to ensure a cohesive system solution.
To support the integration, the models must establish semantic interoperability to ensure that a construct in one
model has the same meaning as a corresponding construct in another model. This information must also be
exchanged between modeling tools.
One approach to semantic interoperability is to use model transformations between different models.
Transformations are defined which establish correspondence between the concepts in one model and the concepts in
another. In addition to establishing correspondence, the tools must have a means to exchange the model data and
share the transformation information. There are multiple means for exchanging data between tools, including file
exchange, use of application program interfaces (API), and a shared repository.
The use of modeling standards for modeling languages, model transformations, and data exchange is an important
enabler of integration across modeling domains.
References
Works Cited
Barry, P.S., M.T.K. Koehler, and B.F. Tivnan. 2009. Agent-Directed Simulation for Systems Engineering. McLean,
VA: MITRE, March 2009, PR# 09-0267.
DoD. 1998. "'DoD modeling and simulation (M&S) glossary," in DoD Manual 5000.59-M. Arlington, VA, USA: US
Department of Defense. January 1998.
Wymore, A. 1967. A Mathematical Theory of Systems Engineering: The Elements. New York, NY, USA: John
Wiley.
Wymore, A. 1993. Model-Based Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Primary References
Law, A. 2007. Simulation Modeling and Analysis, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw Hill.
Wymore, A. 1993. Model-Based Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Estefan, J. 2008. Survey of Candidate Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies, Revision B.
Pasadena, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02.
Rouquette, N. and S. Jenkins. 2010. OWL Ontologies and SysML Profiles: Knowledge Representation and Modeling.
Proceedings of the NASA-ESA PDE Workshop, June 2010.

System Modeling Concepts

A system model represents aspects of a system and its environment. There are many different types of models, as
there are a variety of purposes for which they are built. It is useful to have a common way to talk about the concepts
underlying the many different types of models (e.g., many modeling techniques enable the understanding of system
behavior, while others enable the understanding of system structure). This article highlights several concepts used for
modeling systems.
Abstraction
Perhaps the most fundamental concept in systems modeling is abstraction, which concerns hiding unimportant
details in order to focus on essential characteristics. Systems that are worth modeling have too many details for all of
them to reasonably be modeled. Apart from the sheer size and structural complexity that a system may possess, a
system may be behaviorally complex as well, with emergent properties, non-deterministic behavior, and other
difficult-to-characterize properties. Consequently, models must focus on a few vital characteristics in order to be
computationally and intellectually tractable. Modeling techniques address this complexity through various forms of
abstraction. For example, a model may assume that structural characteristics of many individual components of a
particular type are all the same, ignoring the small order differences between individuals in instances that occur in
real life. In that case, those differences are assumed to be unimportant to modeling the structural integrity of those
components. Of course, if that assumption is wrong, then the model could lead to false confidence in that structural
integrity. There are two key concepts that are applied in regard to modeling different levels of abstraction, which are:
view and viewpoint, and black-box and white-box modeling, which are described below. Although these two
modeling methods are the most widely recognized, different modeling languages and tools employ other techniques
as well.
View and Viewpoint

IEEE 1471, a standard for architecture modeling, defines "view" and "viewpoint" as follows:
• View - A representation of a whole system from the perspective of a related set of concerns.
• Viewpoint - A specification of the conventions necessary for constructing and using a view; a pattern or template
from which to develop individual views by establishing the purposes and audience for a view and the techniques
for its creation and analysis.
Even though IEEE 1471 is focused on architecture models, the concepts of view and viewpoint are general and could
apply to models for other purposes as well (IEEE 2000). The viewpoint addresses the concerns of the stakeholders
and provides the necessary conventions for constructing a view to address those concerns; therefore, the view
represents aspects of the system that address the concerns of the stakeholder. Models can be created to represent the
different views of the system. A systems model should be able to represent multiple views of the system to address a
range of stakeholder concerns. Standard views may include requirements, functional, structural, and parametric
views, as well as a multitude of discipline-specific views to address system reliability, safety, security, and other
quality characteristics.
Black-Box and White-Box Models

A very common abstraction technique is to model the system as a black-box, which only exposes the features of the
system that are visible from an external observer and hides the internal details of the design. This includes externally
visible behavior and other physical characteristics, such as the system’s mass or weight. A white-box model of a
system, on the other hand, shows the internal structure and displays the behavior of the system. Black-box and
white-box modeling can be applied to the next level of design decomposition in order to create a black-box and
white-box model of each system component.
Conceptual Model
A conceptual model is the set of concepts within a system and the relationships among those concepts (e.g., view and
viewpoint). A system conceptual model describes, using one diagram type (such as in Object-Process Methodology
(OPM)) or several diagram types (such as in Systems Modeling Language (SysML)), the various aspects of the
system. The conceptual model might include its requirements, behavior, structure, and properties. In addition, a
system conceptual model is accompanied by a set of definitions for each concept. Sometimes, system concept
models are defined using an entity relationship diagram, an object-process diagram (OPD), or a Unified Modeling
Language (UML) class diagram.
A preliminary conceptual (or concept) model for systems engineering (Systems Engineering Concept Model) was
developed in support of the integration efforts directed toward the development of the Object Management Group
(OMG) SysML and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) AP233 Data Exchange Standard for
Systems Engineering (ISO 2010). The concept model was originally captured in an informal manner; however, the
model and associated concepts were rigorously reviewed by a broad representation of the systems engineering
community, including members from the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), AP233, and
SysML development teams.
A fragment from the top level systems engineering concept model is included in Figure 1. This model provides
concepts for requirements, behavior, structure and properties of the system, as well as other concepts common to
systems engineering and project management, such as the stakeholder. The concept model is augmented by a
well-defined glossary of terms called the semantic dictionary. The concept model and the semantic dictionary
contributed greatly to the requirements for the OMG Systems Modeling Language written in the UML for Systems
Engineering Request for Proposal.
Figure 1. Fragment of the Object Management Group System Concept Model (Oliver 2003, Slide 3). Permission granted by
David Oliver on behalf of INCOSE MDSD Working Group. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
A concept model is sometimes referred to as a meta-model, domain meta-model, or schema, and can be used to
specify the abstract syntax of a modeling language (refer to the Model Driven Architecture (MDA®) Foundation
Model (OMG 2010)). Several other systems engineering concept models have been developed but not standardized.
Future standardization efforts should establish a standard systems engineering concept model. The model can then
evolve over time as the systems engineering community continues to formalize and advance the practice of systems
engineering.
References
Works Cited
IEEE. 2000. Recommended Practice for Architectural Description for Software-Intensive Systems. New York, NY,
USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE 1471-2000.
ISO. 2010. OMG System Modeling Language (OMG SysML), version 1.2. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management
Group.
OMG. 2010. MDA Foundation Model. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management Group. Document number
ORMSC/2010-09-06.
Primary References
ANSI/IEEE. 2000. Recommended Practice for Architectural Description for Software-Intensive Systems. New York,
NY, USA: American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
ANSI/IEEE 1471-2000.
Dori, D. 2002. Object-Process Methodology – A Holistic Systems Paradigm. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag.
Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Databases and Information Systems IV. Available at: http:/ / portal. acm.
org/citation.cfm?id=1565425.
IEEE. 2000. Recommended Practice for Architectural Description for Software-Intensive Systems. New York, NY,
USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE 1471-2000.
INCOSE. 2003. Systems Engineering Concept Model. Draft 12 Baseline. Seattle, WA, USA: International Council
on Systems Engineering. Available at: http:/ / syseng. omg. org/ SE_Conceptual%20Model/ SE_Conceptual_Model.
htm.
OMG. 2003. UML for Systems Engineering Request for Proposal. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management Group.
OMG document number ad/2003-3-41. Available at: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2003-3-41.
None.

Integrating Supporting Aspects into System

Models
This article discusses the integrated modeling of systems and supporting aspects using Model-Based Systems
Engineering methodologies and frameworks. Supporting aspects of systems engineering include:
• Engineering Management
• Project Management
• Requirements Engineering and Management
• Risk Modeling, Analysis, and Management
• Quality Assurance, Testing, Verification, and Validation
• System Integration and Employment
• Analysis of "-ilities" (e.g., Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Safety, And Security (RAMSS),
Manufacturability, Extensibility, Robustness, Resilience, Flexibility, and Evolvability)
These aspects can pertain to physical facets, as well as to functional, structural, behavioral, social, and environmental
facets of the core system model. The article focuses on three main aspects:
1. Project and Engineering Management
2. Risk Modeling, Analysis, and Management
3. Requirements Definition and Management
Background
The model-based approach to systems engineering considers the system model as much more than a plain
description of the system; the model is the central common basis for capturing, representing, and integrating the
various system aspects listed above. The model is essential to the design and understanding of the system as well as
to managing its life cycle and evolution. Modeling languages constitute the basis for standardized, formal
descriptions of systems, just like natural languages form the basis for human communication.
As systems progressively become more complex and multidisciplinary, the conceptual modeling of systems needs to
evolve and will become more critical for understanding complex design (Dori 2002). In addition to facilitating
communication among clients, designers, and developers, conceptual modeling languages also assist in clearly
describing and documenting various domains, systems, and problems, and define requirements and constraints for
the design and development phases (Wand and Weber 2002). The importance of model-based analysis is
demonstrated by the variety of conceptual modeling methodologies and frameworks, although de facto standards are
slow to emerge. While certain disciplines of engineering design, such as structural analysis or circuit design, have
established modeling semantics and notation, the conceptual modeling of complex systems and processes has not yet
converged on a unified, consolidated modeling framework (Estefan 2007). The challenge is not only to integrate
multiple aspects and support the various phases of the system’s life cycle, but also to capture the multidisciplinary
nature of the system, which has led to the creation of various frameworks. Nevertheless, the information systems
analysis paradigm is currently the most widely used, perhaps due to the need to integrate complex systems via
information-intensive applications and interactions.
Integrated Modeling of Systems and Projects

This section discusses the integrated modeling of systems and projects and of the project-system relationship (often
called Project-Product Integration). The fields of project management and systems engineering have been advancing
hand-in-hand for the last two decades, due to the understanding that successful projects create successful systems.
Many of the main systems engineering resources pay considerable attention to project management and consider it to
be a critical process and enabler of systems engineering (INCOSE 2012; NASA 2007; Sage and Rouse 2011). The
integration of system-related aspects and concepts into project plans is more common than the integration of
project-related aspects and concepts into system models. Because the project is a means to an end, it is the process
that is expected to deliver the system. Indeed, project activities are often named after or in accord with the
deliverables that they are aimed at facilitating (e.g., “console design,” “software development,” “hardware
acquisition,” or “vehicle assembly”). Each is a function name, consisting of an object (noun), or the system to be
attained, and a process (verb), being the project or part of the project aimed at attaining the end system.
The specific process associated with each of these examples refers to different stages or phases of the project and to
different maturity levels of the system or sub-system to which it applies. Moreover, the mere inclusion of system and
part names in activity names does not truly associate system model artifacts with these activities. Overall, it is not
truly possible to derive the set of activities associated with a particular part or functionality of the system that will be
delivered by the project. Project-Product integration is not straightforward, as project models and system models are
traditionally disparate and hardly interface. A model-based approach to project-system integration follows a
system-centric paradigm and focuses on incorporating project-related aspects and concepts into the core system
model, as opposed to the project-centric approach described in the previous paragraph. Such aspects and concepts
include schedule, budget and resources, deliverables, work-packages, constraints and previous relations. The
integrated system-project model should provide useful information on the mutual effects of project activities and
system components and capabilities. Some examples of integrated system-project modeling include the following:
• The set of project activities associated with a particular system component, feature, or capability.
• The set of resources required for performing a task of designing or developing a particular component of the
system.
• The team or subcontractor responsible for delivering each system component.

• The preexisting dependencies between activities of system components deployment.
• The cost associated with each system component, feature, or capability.
• The parts of the system negotiated for each delivery, deployment, build, release, or version.
The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is designed to support the division of the project scope (work content)
amongst the individuals and organizations participating in the project (Golany and Shtub 2001). The WBS is
traditionally organization or activity-oriented; however, one of its main cornerstones focuses on the deliverable,
which corresponds to the system, sub-system, component, or a capability or feature of one or more of these. A
deliverable-oriented WBS, in which the high-level elements correspond to primary sub-systems, is advocated, as it is
likely to allow the WBS to be more product-oriented (Rad 1999). An integrated approach to project planning and
system modeling (Sharon and Dori 2009) merges the system model with the project’s WBS using Object-Process
Methodology (OPM) (Dori 2002). The unified OPM model captures both the project activities and the system
components and functionalities.
The Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is a common method for enhancing and analyzing the design of products and
systems. DSMs can be component-based, task-based, parameter-based, or team-based (Browning 2001). A DSM for
an OPM-based project-product model derives a hybrid DSM of project activities and system building blocks from
the unified OPM model, accounting for dependencies between project activities and system components, as well as
replacing the two monolithic and separate component-based and task-based DSM views (Sharon, De-Weck, and
Dori 2012). The underlying OPM model assures model consistency and traceability. The integrated project-product
OPM model includes both a diagram and an equivalent auto-generated textual description. The DSM derived from
this model visualizes a dependency loop comprising both system components and project activities.
Another model-based approach (Demoly et al. 2010) employs System Modeling Language (SysML) in order to
create various views that meet the needs of various system stakeholders, such as the project/process manager. The
approach includes both product-oriented and process-oriented views.
Integrated Modeling of Systems and Requirements

Requirements are statements that describe operational, functional, or design-related aspects of a system.
Requirements definition and management is an important SE process, as it both initiates and facilitates the entire SE
effort by defining the expected functions and performance of the engineered system. Several challenges associated
with requirements include:
• Defining the requirements in a structured, controlled manner.
• Tracing these requirements to system components, aspects, and decisions.
• Testing and verifying compliance of the system with these requirements.
The extension of conceptual system models to include requirements has several significant benefits:
1. Requirements provide the rationale for the system's architecture and design by making and justifying architectural
and design decisions based on specific requirements.
2. Modeling the internal logic and the hierarchy and dependency relations among requirements enables
identification and elimination of redundant and contradictory requirements.
3. Teams and persons responsible for delivering various system components can often take responsibility for
satisfying specific requirements. While the advantages of having good requirements engineering is clear, it is
often a challenge to directly trace requirements to specific system artifacts, especially when the requirements are
defined in a holistic, solution-independent manner.
There are several methods to incorporate requirements into system models, including SysML Requirements
Engineering and Object-Process Methodology (OPM)-based Requirements Engineering and Authoring.
SysML-Based Requirements Engineering

The SysML requirements diagram makes it possible to capture the requirements and the relations among them in a
visual manner, which is more intuitive than the textual manner in which requirements are traditionally edited and
managed. The diagram was added to the basic set of UML diagrams that formed the basis for SysML (Friedenthal,
Moore, and Steiner 2006), and is not a native UML diagram. Tracing requirements to the system blocks and artifacts
satisfying them can be captured in the SysML Block Definition Diagram, which is primarily designated to capture
the relations among types of system elements and components. The < > link between the block and the requirement
captures the trace.
OPM-Based Requirements Engineering

Object-Process Methodology (OPM) is a methodology and language for conceptual modeling of complex systems
and processes with a bimodal textual and graphical representation (Dori 2002). OPM’s textual representation is
coordinated with the graphical representation; additionally, each visual model construct in the Object-Process
Diagram (OPD) is described by a formal structured textual statement in Object-Process Language (OPL), which is a
subset of natural English. OPM facilitates model-based requirements engineering, authoring, and specification, in
three possible modes:
1. OPM can be used to generate conceptual models which initially focus on the requirements level—the problem
domain, rather than the design level or the solution domain, which facilitates automated model-based
requirements generation (Blekhman and Dori 2011). The requirements model is solution-neutral, and it can be the
basis for one or more architectural solutions for achieving the functions specified in the requirements.
2. OPM can be utilized in order to generate requirement-oriented OPDs in a manner similar to how the SysML
Requirements Diagram enables an engineer to capture the requirements specification as the skeleton for the
system model. User-defined tagged structural relations, such as "is realized by" or is allocated to," provide for
associating requirements with system model functions (objects and processes that transform them). This approach
is similar to the SysML requirements diagram; however, instead of using a unique notation in a separate diagram
type, the requirements are seamlessly incorporated into the single system model.
3. OPM can be used for the purpose of generating visual system models from formally specified requirements by
tracing the textually authored requirements to system model inserts and artifacts (Dori et al. 2004).
Integrating Risk into System Models

Risk is an expression and a measure of the negative or adverse impact of uncertainty. Risk exists whenever
uncertainty can lead to several results, of which some may be negative (adverse) and some positive. A system faces
risks from other systems or from the environment, and it can also pose risks to other systems or to the environment.
Systems are characterized by such attributes, such as: goals, objectives, inputs, outputs, variables, parameters,
processes, events, states, subsystems, interfaces, mechanisms, and methods. System vulnerability is the system's total
potential to be harmed or negatively affected in any one of these attributes. Analogously, system harmfulness is the
system's total potential to harm others or to generate negative effects, which can be manifested in one or more of
these attributes (Haimes 2009). Model-based risk analysis (MBRA) enables structured analysis and risk-related
process control. Several model-based risk analysis approaches are available in the literature. MBRA is presently
more common in the information technology and information security domains than in the systems engineering
domain; however, some of the methods are generally applicable to complex systems as well. The ISO-IEC-IEEE
collaborative software development and operation lifecycle standard (ISO and IEC 2004) proposes a concurrent
approach to IT Risk Management. This approach consists of six main activities:
• Plan and Implement Risk Management
• Manage the Project Risk Profile
• Perform Risk Analysis
• Perform Risk Monitoring

• Perform Risk Treatment
• Evaluate the Risk Management Process
These activities are executed concurrently, affect and provide feedback to each other, and interact with other
software life cycle processes, such as the technical management and the design processes (ISO and IEC 2004).
The CORAS approach (Fredriksen et al. 2002; den Braber et al. 2006; Lund, Solhaug, and Stølen 2011) is a
UML-derivative for IT security risk modeling and assessment. This framework consists mostly of the UML use case
(UC) diagram, extended for misuse cases. Additional notation was added to the UC notation in order to capture risk
sources, effects, and results (e.g., the “bad actor” icon, moneybag for asset-in-risk). A misuse diagram can include,
for example, the risk of loss of legal protection of proprietary know-how due to information theft and distribution by
an unfaithful employee. The treatment for the risk source of insufficient security policy, which contributes to the
above risk, is illustrated in a separate treatment diagram.
A quantitative risk assessment method for component-based systems (Grunske and Joyce 2008) supports component
vulnerability analysis and specification using modular attack trees. In addition, it provides attacker profiling, which
enables supporting econometric approaches to risk response. The methodology utilizes SysML as its underpinning
language, especially the SysML block definition diagram and parametric diagram, in order to capture parametric
relations and constraints as a means to defining risk profiles.
System-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP) is a method for system and component design for safety
(Leveson 2011). STAMP reformulates the safety problem as a control problem as opposed to a reliability problem.
STAMP is optimized for safety-oriented systems engineering and design and for hazard avoidance and mitigation,
specifically in complex socio-technical systems. A model-based adaptation of STAMP was also proposed (Leveson
2004) and was implemented in various safety-critical and mission-critical systems, including aircraft collision
avoidance systems (CAS) (Leveson 2004) and ballistic missile defense systems (Pereira, Lee, and Howard 2006).
Risk-Oriented Systems Engineering (ROSE) (Mordecai and Dori 2013) is a method based on Object-Process
Methodology (OPM) for integrating risk into system models. Being system-centric, ROSE is responsible for
capturing risk layers and aspects on top of and in sync with the core system model, while improving and immunizing
it against captured risks, as well as for generating system robustness and resilience by design in response to various
risk-posing scenarios. The risk handling meta-model includes risk mitigation during the design phase and risk
response during the operational phase.
References
Works Cited
Blekhman, A. and D. Dori. 2011. “Model-Based requirements authoring - Creating explicit specifications with
OPM,” in 6th International Conference on Systems Engineering. Herzeliyya, Israel.
Browning, T.R. 2001. “Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A
review and new directions,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 48, no 3, pp. 292–306. Available
at: IEEE http:/ / ieeexplore. ieee. org/ lpdocs/ epic03/ wrapper. htm?arnumber=946528, and doi:10.1109/17.946528.
Accessed December 4, 2014.
Demoly, F., D. Monticolo, B. Eynard, L. Rivest, and S. Gomes. 2010. “Multiple viewpoint modelling framework
enabling integrated product–process design,” International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing
(IJIDeM), vol. 4, no. 4, October 12, pp. 269–280. Available at: Springer http:/ / link. springer. com/ 10. 1007/
s12008-010-0107-3, and doi:10.1007/s12008-010-0107-3. Accessed December 4, 2014.
Den Braber, F., G. Brændeland, H.E.I. Dahl, I. Engan, I. Hogganvik, M.S. Lund, B. Solhaug, K. Stølen, and F.
Vraalsen. 2006. The CORAS Model-based Method for Security Risk Analysis. Oslo, Norway: SINTEF.
Dori, D., N. Korda, A. Soffer, and S. Cohen. 2004. “SMART: System model acquisition from requirements text,”
Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Business Process Management, vol. 3080, pp. 179–194. Available at: Springer
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-25970-1_12.Accessed December 4, 2014.
USA: International Council on Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02.
Friedenthal, S., A. Moore, and R. Steiner. 2006. “OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML™) Tutorial”
(July).
Golany, B. and A. Shtub. 2001. “Work breakdown structure,” in Salvendy, G. Ed. 2001. Handbook of Industrial
Engineering, Technology and Operations Management, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.
1263–1280.
Grunske, L. and D. Joyce. 2008. “Quantitative risk-based security prediction for component-based systems with
explicitly modeled attack profiles,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 81, no. 8, pp. 1327–1345.
Haimes, Y. 2009. “On the complex definition of risk: A systems-based approach,” Risk Analysis, vol. 29, no. 12, pp.
1647–1654. Available at: Wiley http:/ / onlinelibrary. wiley. com/ doi/ 10. 1111/ j. 1539-6924. 2009. 01310. x/ full.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2004. Systems and Software Engineering - Life Cycle Processes - Risk management. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
ISO/IEC/IEEE 16085:2006.
Leveson, N.G. 2004. “Model-Based Analysis of Socio-Technical Risk.” Cambridge, MA, USA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) Working Paper Series. ESD-WP-2004-08.
Leveson, N.G. 2011. Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT
Press.
Lund, M.S., B. Solhaug, and K. Stølen. 2011. Model-Driven Risk Analysis: The CORAS Approach. Berlin and
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Available at: Springer http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ index/ 10.
1007/978-3-642-12323-8, and doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12323-8. Accessed December 4, 2014.
Mordecai, Y., and D. Dori. 2013. “Model-Based risk-oriented robust systems design with object-process
methodology,” International Journal of Strategic Engineering Asset Management, vol. 1, pp. 331-354 (CESUN 2012
Special Issue).
NASA. 2007. Systems Engineering Handbook. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105.
Pereira, S.J., G. Lee, and J. Howard. 2006. “A system-theoretic hazard analysis methodology for a non-advocate
safety assessment of the ballistic missile defense system,” Vol. 1606. Available at: Defense Technical Information
Center http:/ / oai. dtic. mil/ oai/ oai?verb=getRecord& metadataPrefix=html& identifier=ADA466864. Accessed
December 4, 2014.
Rad, P.F. 1999. “Advocating a Deliverable-Oriented Work Breakdown Structure.” Cost Engineering, vol. 41, no. 12,
p. 35. Sage, Andrew P., and William B. Rouse. 2011. Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Sharon, A., O.L. de Weck, and D. Dori. 2012. “Improving project-product lifecycle management with model-based
design structure matrix: A joint project management and systems engineering approach,” Systems Engineering, vol.
16, no. 4, pp. 413-426. Available at: doi:10.1002/sys.21240.
Sharon, A., and D. Dori. 2009. “A model-based approach for planning work breakdown structures of complex
systems projects,” in Proc. 14th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing.
Wand, Y., and R. Weber. 2002. “Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling-A Research
Agenda,” Information Systems Research, vol. 13, no. 4, December, pp. 363–376. Available at:
doi:10.1287/isre.13.4.363.69.
Primary References
USA: International Council on Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02.
Golany, B. and A. Shtub. 2001. “Work breakdown structure,” in Salvendy, G. Ed. 2001. Handbook of Industrial
Engineering, Technology and Operations Management, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.
1263–1280.
INCOSE. 2012. INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities.
Version 3.2.2. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE),
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
NASA. 2007. Systems Engineering Handbook. Washington, D.C., USA: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105.
Kristiansen, B.G. and K. Stolen. 2002. “The CORAS framework for a model-based risk management process,” in
Lecture Notes, S. Anderson, M. Felici, and S. Bologna. Eds., vol. 2434, pp. 94–105. Berlin and Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer-Verlag. Available at: doi:10.1007/3-540-45732-1_11.

Modeling Standards
Different types of models are needed to support the analysis, specification, design, and verification of systems. The
evolution of modeling standards enables the broad adoption of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE).
Motivation for Modeling Standards

Modeling standards play an important role in defining agreed-upon system modeling concepts that can be
represented for a particular domain of interest and enable the integration of different types of models across domains
of interest. Modeling standards are extremely important to support MBSE, which aims to integrate various system
aspects across various disciplines, products, and technologies.
Standards for system modeling languages can enable cross-discipline, cross-project, and cross-organization
communication. This communication offers the potential to reduce the training requirements for practitioners who
only need to learn about a particular system and enables the reuse of system artifacts. Standard modeling languages
also provide a common foundation for advancing the practice of systems engineering, as do other systems
engineering standards.
Types of Modeling Standards

Many different standards apply to systems modeling. Modeling standards include standards for modeling languages,
data exchange between models, and the transformation of one model to another to achieve semantic interoperability.
Each type of model can be used to represent different aspects of a system, such as representing the set of system
components and their interconnections and interfaces, or to represent a system to support performance analysis or
reliability analysis.
The following is a partial list of representative modeling standards, which also includes the common acronym, when
applicable, and a reference as to where additional information can be found on the topic.
Modeling Languages for Systems

Descriptive Models - These standards apply to general descriptive modeling of systems:
• Functional Flow Block Diagram (FFBD) (Oliver, Kelliher, and Keegan 1997)
• Integration Definition for Functional Modeling (IDEF0) (NIST 1993)
• Object-Process Methodology (OPM) [[1]] (Dori 2002; ISO/PAS 19450:2015)
• Systems Modeling Language (SysML)(OMG 2010a)
• Unified Profile for United States Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and United Kingdom
Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF) (OMG 2011e)
• Web ontology language (OWL) (W3C 2004b)
Analytical Models and Simulations - These standards apply to analytical models and simulations:
• Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) (IEEE 1998)
• High-Level Architecture (HLA) (IEEE 2010)
• Modelica (Modelica Association 2010)
• Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable Unified Modeling Language (UML) Models (FUML) (OMG
2011d)
Data Exchange Standards

These standards enable the exchange of information between models:
• Application Protocol for Systems Engineering Data Exchange (ISO 10303-233) (AP-233) (ISO 2005)
• Requirements Interchange Format (ReqIF) (OMG 2011c)
• Extensible Mark-Up Language - (XML) Metadata Interchange (XMI) (OMG 2003a)
• Resource Description Framework (RDF) (W3C 2004a)
Model Transformations
These standards apply to transforming one model to another to support semantic interoperability:
• Query View Transformations (QVT) (OMG 2011b)
• Systems Modeling Language (SysML)-Modelica Transformation (OMG 2010c)
• OPM-to-SysML Transformation (Grobshtein and Dori 2011)
General Modeling Standards

These standards provide general frameworks for modeling:
• Model-driven architecture (MDA®) (OMG 2003b)
• IEEE 1471-2000 - Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems
(ANSI/IEEE 2000) (ISO/IEC 2007)
Other Domain-Specific Modeling Standards

Software Design Models
These standards apply to modeling application software and/or embedded software design:
• Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) (SAE 2009)
• Modeling and Analysis for Real-Time and Embedded Systems (MARTE) (OMG 2009)
• Unified Modeling Language (UML) (OMG 2010b)
Hardware Design Models
These standards apply to modeling hardware design:
• Very-High-Speed Integrated Circuit (VHSIC) Hardware Description Language (VHDL) (IEEE 2008)
Business Process Models
These standards apply to modeling business processes:
• Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) (OMG 2011a)
References
Works Cited
Grobshtein, Y. and D. Dori. 2011. "Generating SysML views from an OPM model: Design and evaluation," Systems
Engineering, vol. 14, no. 3 Sept. 2011.
IEEE. 1998. Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS). Washington, DC, USA: Institute for Electrical and Electronic
Engineers. IEEE 1278.1-1995. Available at: IEEE http:/ / standards. ieee. org/ develop/ project/ 1278. 2. html.
IEEE. 2008. VHSIC Hardware Description Language (VHDL). Washington, DC, USA: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard 1076-2008. Available at: IEEE http:/ / standards. ieee. org/ findstds/ standard/
1076-2008.html.Accessed December 4, 2014.
IEEE. 2010. Standard for High Level Architecture. Washington, DC, USA: Institute for Electrical and Electronic
Engineers. IEEE Standard 1516. Available at: IEEE http:/ / standards. ieee. org/ develop/ intl/ intlstds. html.
ISO. 2005. Application Protocol for Systems Engineering Data Exchange. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Organization for Standardization. ISO 10303-233. Available at: ISO http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ iso_catalogue/
catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=55257.Accessed December 4, 2014.
ISO. 2015. Automation Systems and Integration - Object Process Methodology. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Organization for Standardization. ISO/PAS 19450:2015. Available at: ISO https:/ / www. iso. org/ obp/ ui/
#iso:std:iso:pas:19450:ed-1:v1:en.Accessed March 15, 2020.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering — Architecture Description. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission/Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers. December 1, 2011. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011. Available at: ISO http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/
home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=50508.Accessed December 4, 2014.
Modelica Association. 2010. Modelica® - A Unified Object-Oriented Language for Physical Systems Modeling,
Language Specification, Version 3.2. Modelica Association. Available at: Modelica https:/ / www. modelica. org/
documents/ModelicaSpec32.pdf.Accessed December 4, 2014.
NIST. 1993. Integration Definition for Functional Modeling (IDEF0). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for
Standards and Technologies. Available at: IDEF http://www.idef.com/IDEF0.htm.Accessed December 4, 2014.
Oliver, D., T. Kelliher, and J. Keegan. 1997. Engineering Complex Systems with Models and Objects. New York,
NY, USA: McGraw Hill.
OMG 2003a. XML Metadata Interchange (XMI), Version 1.1. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management Group.
Available at: OMG http://www.omg.org/spec/XML/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
OMG. 2003b. Model Driven Architecture (MDA®), Version 1.0.1. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management
Group. Available at: OMG http://www.omg.org/mda.Accessed December 4, 2014.
OMG. 2009. Modeling and Analysis for Real-Time and Embedded Systems (MARTE), Version 1.0. Object
Management Group. Available at: OMG http://www.omg.org/spec/MARTE/1.0/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
OMG. 2010a. OMG Systems Modeling Language (SysML), Version 1.2. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management
Group. Available at: SysML forum http:/ / www. sysml. org/ docs/ specs/ OMGSysML-v1. 2-10-06-02. pdf.
OMG. 2010b. Unified Modeling Language™ (UML), Version 2. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management Group.
Available at: OMG http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
OMG. 2010c. SysML-Modelica Transformation Specification, Beta Version. Needham, MA, USA: Object
Management Group. Available at: OMG http://www.omg.org/spec/SyM/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
OMG. 2011a. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management
Group. Available at: OMG http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
OMG. 2011b. Query View Transformations (QVT), Version 1.1. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management Group.
Available at: OMG http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.1/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
OMG. 2011c. Requirements Interchange Format (ReqIF), Version 1.0.1. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management
Group. Available at: OMG http://www.omg.org/spec/ReqIF/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
OMG. 2011d. Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models (FUML), Version 1.0. Needham,
MA, USA: Object Management Group. Available at: OMG http:/ / www. omg. org/ spec/ FUML/ 1. 0/ . Accessed
December 4, 2014.
OMG. 2011e. Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM), Version 1.1. Needham, MA, USA: Object
Management Group. Available at: OMG http://www.omg.org/spec/UPDM/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
SAE. 2009. Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL). Warrendale, PA, USA: SAE International. Available
at: Society of Automotive Engineers http://standards.sae.org/as5506a/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
W3C. 2004a. Resource Description Framework (RDF), Version 1.0. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at:
World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/RDF/.Accessed December 4, 2014.
W3C. 2004b. Web Ontology Language. (OWL). World Wide Web Consortium. Available at: World Wide Web
Consortium http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL.Accessed December 4, 2014.
Primary References
Dori, D. 2002. Object-Process Methodology – A Holistic Systems Paradigm. Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany; New
York, NY, USA: Springer Verlag.
Fritzon, P. 2004. Object-Oriented Modeling and Simulation with Modelica 2.1. New York, NY, USA: Wiley
Interscience and IEEE Press.
Bibliowicz, A. and D. Dori. 2012. “A graph grammar-based formal validation of object-process diagrams,” Software
and Systems Modeling, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 287-302.
Blekhman, A. and D. Dori. 2011. "Model-Based Requirements Authoring." INCOSE 2011 – The 6th International
Conference on System Engineering. March 2011.
Dori, D., R. Feldman, and A. Sturm. 2008. From conceptual models to schemata: An object-process-based data
warehouse construction method," Information Systems, vol. 33, pp. 567–593.
Osorio, C.A., D. Dori, and J. Sussman. 2011. COIM: An object-process based method for analyzing architectures of
complex, interconnected, large-scale socio-technical systems, Systems Engineering, vol. 14, no. 3.
Paredis, C.J.J. et al. 2010. "An overview of the SysML-Modelica transformation specification". Proceedings of the
20th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 12-15 July 2010,
Chicago, IL.
Reinhartz-Berger, I. and D. Dori. 2005. "OPM vs. UML—Experimenting with comprehension and construction of
web application models," Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 57–79, 2005.
Weilkiens, T. 2008. Systems Engineering with SysML/UML. Needham, MA, USA: OMG Press.

References
[1] https:/ / www. iso. org/ obp/ ui/ #iso:std:iso:pas:19450:ed-1:v1:en
214
Knowledge Area: Systems Approach

Applied to Engineered Systems
Systems Approach Applied to Engineered

Systems
Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Janet Singer, Duane Hybertson
This knowledge area (KA) provides a guide for

applying the systems approach as a means of
identifying and understanding complex problems and
opportunities, synthesizing possible alternatives,
analyzing and selecting the best alternative, This knowledge area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
implementing and approving a solution, as well as
deploying, using and sustaining engineered system solutions. The active participation of stakeholders during all the
activities of the systems approach is the key to the success of the systems approach.
In an engineered system context, a systems approach is a holistic approach that spans the entire life of the system;
however, it is usually applied in the development and operational/support life cycle stages. This knowledge area
defines a systems approach using a common language and intellectual foundation to ensure that practical systems
concepts, principles, patterns and tools are accessible to perform systems engineering (SE), as is discussed in the
introduction to Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering.
Topics
Each part of the Guide to the SE Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) is divided into KAs, which are groupings of
information with a related theme. The KAs, in turn, are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
Systems Approach
This KA describes a high-level framework of activities and principles synthesized from the elements of the systems
approach, as described earlier in Part 2 of the SEBoK, and is mapped to the articles Concepts of Systems Thinking,
Principles of Systems Thinking, and Patterns of Systems Thinking. The concept map in Figure 1 describes how the
knowledge is arranged in this KA and the linkage to the KA in Part 3.
Figure 1. Systems Engineering and the Systems Approach. (SEBoK Original)
According to Jackson et al. (2010, 41-43), the systems approach to engineered systems is a problem-solving
paradigm. It is a comprehensive problem identification and resolution approach based upon the principles, concepts,
and tools of systems thinking and systems science, along with the concepts inherent in engineering problem-solving.
It incorporates a holistic systems view that covers the larger context of the system, including engineering and
operational environments, stakeholders, and the entire life cycle.
Successful systems practice should not only apply systems thinking to the system being created but should also
utilize systems thinking in consideration of the way in which work is planned and conducted. See Part 5: Enabling
Systems Engineering for further discussions on how individuals, teams, businesses and enterprises may be enabled to
perform systems engineering.
References
Works Cited
Jackson, S., D. Hitchins, and H. Eisner. 2010. "What is the Systems Approach?." INCOSE Insight, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.
41-43.
Primary References
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the General Principles Applicable to Systems?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 12, no. 4.
Jackson, S., D. Hitchins, and H. Eisner. 2010. "What is the Systems Approach?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.
41-43.
Sons.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA:
Doubleday/Currency.

Overview of the Systems Approach

Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Janet Singer, Duane Hybertson, Hillary Sillitto, Bud Lawson,
Brian Wells, James Martin
This knowledge area (KA) considers how a systems

approach relates to engineered systems and to systems
engineering (SE). The article Applying the Systems
Approach considers the dynamic aspects of how the
approach is used and how this relates to elements of The "Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems" knowledge
SE. area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
Systems Approach and Systems Engineering

The term systems approach is used by systems science authors to describe a systems "thinking" approach, as it
pertains to issues outside of the boundary of the immediate system-of-interest (Churchman 1979). This systems
approach is essential when reductionist assumptions (the notion that the whole system has properties derived directly
from the properties of their components) no longer apply to the system-of-interest (SoI) and when emergence and
complexity at multiple levels of a system context necessitate a holistic approach.
The systems approach for engineered systems is designed to examine the "whole system, whole lifecycle, and whole
stakeholder community" as well as to ensure that the purpose of the system (or systemic intervention) is achieved
sustainably without causing any negative unintended consequences. This prevents the engineer from "transferring
the burden" (in systems thinking terms) to some other part of the environment that unable to sustain that burden
(Senge 2006). This also deters issues involving sub-optimization that could occur when whole systems are not kept
in mind in achieving the purpose of the system (Sillitto 2012).
The systems approach (derived from systems thinking) and systems engineering (SE) have developed and matured,
for the most part, independently; therefore, the systems science and the systems engineering communities differ in
their views as to what extent SE is based on a systems approach and how well SE uses the concepts, principles,
patterns and representations of systems thinking. These two views are discussed in the following sections.
Systems Science View

As discussed in the Systems Science article, some parts of the systems movement have been developed as a reaction
to the perceived limitations of systems engineering (Checkland 1999).
According to Ryan (2008):
Systems engineering has a history quite separate to the systems movement. Its closest historical link
comes from the application of systems analysis techniques to parts of the systems engineering process . .
. The recent popularity of the SoS buzzword in the systems engineering literature has prompted the
expansion of systems engineering techniques to include methods that can cope with evolving
networks of semi-autonomous systems. This has led many systems engineers to read more widely
across the systems literature, and is providing a re-conceptualization of systems engineering as part of
the systems movement, despite its historical independence. This is reflected in the latest INCOSE
hand-book [INCOSE 2011, page 52], which states “the systems engineering perspective is based on
systems thinking”, which “recognizes circular causation, where a variable is both the cause and the
effect of another and recognizes the primacy of interrelationships and non-linear and organic
thinking—a way of thinking where the primacy of the whole is acknowledged. (emphases added)
Thus, for many in the systems science community, systems thinking is not naturally embedded in either SE
definitions or practice.
Systems Engineering View

Many SE authors see a clear link between SE and systems thinking. For example, Hitchins (Hitchins 2007) describes
generic models for the application of systems thinking to engineered system contexts. He suggests that these could
form the foundation for descriptions and standards for the practices of SE. Hitchins also proposes a set of guiding
principles which have been the foundations of SE, apparently since its inception (Hitchins 2009):
• SE Principle A: The Systems Approach - “SE is applied to a system-of-interest (SoI) in a wider systems context”
• SE Principle B: Synthesis - “SE must bring together a collection of parts to create whole system solutions”
• SE Principle C: Holism - “Always consider the consequences on the wider system when making decisions about
the system elements”
• SE Principle D: Organismic Analogy - “Always consider systems as having dynamic “living” behavior in their
environment”
• SE Principle E: Adaptive Optimizing - “Solve problems progressively over time”
• SE Principle F: Progressive Entropy Reduction - “Continue to make systems work over time, through
maintenance, sustainment and, upgrade activities.”
• SE Principle G: Adaptive Satisfying - “A system will succeed only if it makes winners of its success-critical
stakeholders, so the lifecycle of a system must be driven by how well its outputs contribute to stakeholder
purpose”
Hitchins considers principles A-D as pillars of SE that identify key aspects of systems thinking which should
underpin the practice of SE. Principles E-G consider the dynamics of SE life cycle thinking, the why, when and how
often of SE.
The following sections consider the systems approach to engineered systems against four themes.
1. Whole System
The system coupling diagram (Figure 1), describes the scope of a systems approach to engineered systems (Lawson
2010).
Figure 1. System Coupling Diagram (Lawson 2010). Reprinted with permission of Harold "Bud" Lawson. All other
• The situation system is the problem or opportunity either unplanned or planned. The situation may be natural,
man-made, a combination of both, or a postulated situation used as a basis for deeper understanding and training
(e.g. business games or military exercises).
• The respondent system is the system created to respond to the situation. The parallel bars indicate that this
system interacts with the situation and transforms it to a new situation. Respondent systems have several names:,
project, program, mission, task force, or in a scientific context, experiment.
• System assets are the sustained assets of one or more enterprises to be used in response to situations. System
assets must be adequately managed throughout the life of a system to ensure that they perform their function
when instantiated in a respondent system. Examples include: value-added products or services, facilities,
instruments and tools, and abstract systems, such as theories, knowledge, processes and methods.
Martin (Martin 2004) describes seven types of system, or “the seven samurai of systems engineering,”, all of which,
system developers need to understand to develop successful systems:
• the context system
• the intervention system
• the realization system
• the deployed system
• collaborating systems
• the sustainment system
• competing systems
Martin contends that all seven systems must be explicitly acknowledged and understood when engineering a solution
for a complex adaptive situation.
These views, and others, describe one aspect of the systems approach when applied to engineered systems; in
addition, it is applicable to understanding a problem, it organizes the resolution of that problem, and creates and
integrates any relevant assets and capabilities to enable that solution.
2. Whole Lifecycle
Ring (Ring 1998) provides a powerful framework for the continuing management and periodic upgrade of long-life
and “immortal” systems. It also accurately represents the “continuous” or very rapid product launch and refreshment
cycle driven by market feedback and constant innovation that is seen in most product and service system consumer
markets.
Figure 2. Ellipse Graphic (Ring 1998). © 1998 IEEE. Reprinted, with permission, from Jack Ring, Engineering Value-Seeking Systems,
IEEE-SMC. Conference Proceedings. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Enterprise systems engineering may be considered in multiple concurrent instances of this model for different
sub-sets of enterprise assets and services, in order to maintain a capability to pursue enterprise goals in a complex
and dynamic external environment.
The dynamic nature of this cycle and its relationship to Life Cycle thinking is discussed in the article Applying the
Systems Approach.
3. Whole Problem
The article Identifying and Understanding Problems and Opportunities considers the nature of problem situations. It
discusses the relationship between hard system and soft system views of problems and how they relate to engineered
systems. Engineered systems are designed to operate with and add value to a containing social and/or ecological
system. The scope of problems is captured by frameworks, such as Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal
and Environmental (PESTLE) (Gillespie 2007) or Social, Technical, Economic, Environmental, Political, Legal,
Ethical and Demographic (STEEPLED).
The idea of a wicked problem (Rittel and Webber 1973) is also discussed. These problems cannot be quantified and
solved in a traditional engineering sense.
Sillitto (Sillitto 2010) describes a lifecycle model in which the decision as to what parts of problems can be “solved”
and what parts must be “managed” is the first key decision and emphasizes the need for a solution approach that
provides flexibility in the solution to match the level of uncertainty and change in the problem and stakeholder
expectations. It is now normal to view a problem as one that "changes over time” and to promote the belief that value
is determined by the perceptions of key stakeholders.
Figure 3. Engineered vs Managed Problems (Sillitto 2010). Reproduced with permission of Hillary Sillitto. All other rights are reserved by the
copyright owner.
Thus, a systems approach can be useful when addressing all levels of a problematic situation, from individual
technologies to the complex socio-technical issues that come about in the area of engineered systems development.
4. Multi-Disciplinary
As discussed by Sillitto (Sillitto 2012), the methods and thinking applied by many practicing systems engineers have
become optimized to the domains of practice. While systems thinking concepts, patterns and methods are used
widely, they are not endemic in SE practice. As a result, SE practitioners find it difficult to share systems ideas with
others involved in a systems approach. Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering describes traditional (product
based) SE (Lawson 2010) and examines this against the SE approaches that are applicable to service, enterprise, and
system of systems capability. These approaches require more use of problem exploration, a broader solution context,
and a purpose driven life cycle thinking.
SE and Systems Approach

From the above discussions, there are three ways in which SE could make use of a systems approach:
• in its overall problem- solving approach
• in the scope of problem and solution system contexts considered
• in the embedding of systems thinking and systems thinking tools and in all aspects of the conduct of that approach
The current SE standards and guides, as described in Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management, encapsulate
many of the elements of a systems approach. However, they tend to focus primarily on the development of system
solutions while the wider purpose-driven thinking of a full systems approach (Ring 1998) and the wider
consideration of all relevant systems (Martin 2004) are embedded in the acquisition and operational practices of their
application domains.
The inclusion of systems thinking in SE competency frameworks (INCOSE 2010) represents a general move toward
a desire for more use of systems thinking in SE practice. There is a wide stakeholder desire to acquire the benefits of
a systems approach through the application of SE, particularly in areas where current SE approaches are inadequate
or irrelevant. Hence, there is a need for a better articulation of the systems approach and how to apply it to
non-traditional problems.
Synthesis for SEBOK

The systems approach presented in the SEBoK uses the following activities:
• identify and understand the relationships between the potential problems and opportunities in a real
worldreal-world situation
• gain a thorough understanding of the problem and describe a selected problem or opportunity in the context of its
wider system and its environment
• synthesize viable system solutions to a selected problem or opportunity situation
• analyze and choose between alternative solutions for a given time/cost/quality version of the problem.
• provide evidence that a solution has been correctly implemented and integrated
• deploy, sustain, and apply a solution to help solve the problem (or exploit the opportunity)
All of the above are considered within a life cycle (glossary) framework which may need concurrent, recursive
(glossary) and iterative applications of some or all of the systems approach.
When the systems approach is executed in the real world of an engineered system (glossary), a number of
engineering and management disciplines emerge, including SE. Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management and
Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering contain a detailed guide to SE with references to the principles of the
systems approach, where they are relevant. Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering provides a guide to the
relationships between SE and the organizations and Part 6: Related Disciplines also offers a guide to the relationship
between SE and other disciplines.
More detailed discussion of how the systems approach relates to these engineering and management disciplines is
included in the article Applying the Systems Approach within this KA.
References
Works Cited
Churchman, C.W. 1979. The Systems Approach and Its Enemies. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.
Gillespie. 2007. Foundations of Economics - Additional Cchapter on Business Strategy. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the General Principles Applicable to Systems?". INCOSE Insight, vol. . 12, no. (4).
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering, a 21st Century Systems Methodology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
INCOSE. 2010. Systems Engineering Competencies Framework 2010-0205. San Diego, CA, USA: International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2010-003.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.1.
Martin, J., 2004. "The Seven Samurai of Systems Engineering: Dealing with the Complexity of 7 Interrelated
Systems." Proceedings of the 14th Annual INCOSE International Symposium, 20-24 June 2004, Toulouse, France,
20-24 June 2004.

Ring, J., 1998. "A Value Seeking Approach to the Engineering of Systems." Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. pp. 2704-2708.
Rittel, H. and M. Webber. 1973. "Dilemmas in a gGeneral tTheory of pPlanning." Policy Sciences, v. ol. 4, pp.
:155–169.
Ryan, A. 2008. “What is a Systems Approach?” Journal of Non-linear Science.
Senge, P.M. 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 2nd ed. New York, NY,
Sillitto, H. 2010. “Design principles for ultra-large scale systems.” Proceedings of the INCOSE International
Symposium, Chicago, July 2010, re-printed in "The Singapore Engineer," July 2011.
Sillitto, H.G. 2012.: "Integrating sSystems sScience, sSystems tThinking, and sSystems eEngineering:
Uunderstanding the differences and exploiting the synergies,", Proceedings of the INCOSE International
Symposium, Rome, Italy, July 2012.
Primary References
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the general principles applicable to systems," INCOSE Insight, vol. . 12, no. (4).
Biggs, J.B. 1993. "From tTheory to pPractice: A cCognitive sSystems aApproach". Journal of Higher Education &
Development. Accessed December 4 2014. Available at: Taylor and Francis from http:/ / www. informaworld. com/
smpp/content~db=all~content=a758503083.
CRC Press.
Ring J. 2004. "Seeing an Enterprise as a System." INCOSE Insight. 6(2): 7-8.

Engineered System Context

Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Brian Wells, Scott Jackson, James Martin
This article is part of the Systems Approach Applied to

Engineered Systems knowledge area (KA). It describes
knowledge related to the further expansion of the ideas
of an engineered system and engineered system context
that were introduced in the Systems Fundamentals KA. The "Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems" knowledge
area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
The single most important principle of the systems
approach is that it is applied to an engineered system
context and not just to a single system (INCOSE 2012). The systems approach includes models and activities useful
for the understanding, creation, use, and sustainment of engineered systems to enable the realization of stakeholder
needs. Disciplines that use a systems approach (like systems engineering (SE)) consider an engineered system
context that defines stakeholder needs, and look for the best ways to provide value by applying managed technical
activities to one or more selected engineered systems of interest (SoI).
Generally, four specific types of engineered system contexts are recognized in SE:
• product system
• service system
• enterprise system
• system of systems (SoS) capability
One of the key distinctions between these system contexts pertains to the establishment of how and when the SoI
boundary is drawn.
Engineered System-of-Interest
We use the idea of an engineered system context to define an engineered SoI and to capture and agree on the
important relationships between it, the systems with which it works directly, and any other systems with which it
works. All applications of a systems approach (and hence of SE) are applied in a system context rather than only to
an individual system.
A system context can be constructed around the following set of open system relationships (Flood and Carson 1993):
• The Narrower System-of-Interest (NSoI) is the system of direct concern to the observer. The focus of this
system is driven by the scope of authority or control with implicit recognition that this scope may not capture all
related elements.
• The Wider System-of-Interest (WSoI) describes a logical system boundary containing all of the elements needed
to fully understand system behavior. The observer may not have authority over all of the elements in the WSoI
but will be able to establish the relationships between WSoI elements and NSoI elements.
• The WSoI exists in an environment. The immediate environment contains engineered, natural, and/or social
systems, with which the WSoI (and thus some elements of the NSoI) directly interact for the purpose of
exchanging material, information, and/or energy to achieve its goals or objective.
• A Wider Environment completes the context and contains systems that have no direct interaction with the SoI,
but which might influence decisions related to it during its life cycle.
• "Some Theoretical Considerations of Mathematical Modeling" (Flood 1987) extends this context to include a
meta-system (MS) that exists outside of the WSoI and exercises direct control over it.
The choice of the SoI boundary for particular activities depends upon what can be changed and what must remain
fixed. The SoI will always include one or more NSoI but may also include WSoI and an MS if appropriate, such as
when considering a service or an enterprise system.
Applying the System Context

For lower-level and less-complex systems, the WSoI can represent levels of a product system hierarchy. An example
of this would be an engine management unit as part of an engine, or an engine as part of a car. The WSoI in a system
context may encapsulate some aspects of SoS ideas for sufficiently complex systems. In these cases, the WSoI
represents a collection of systems with their own objectives and ownership with which the NSoI must cooperate in
working towards a shared goal. An example of this would be a car and a driver contributing to a transportation
service.
This view of a SoS context being used as a means to support the engineering of an NSoI product system is one way
in which a systems approach can be applied. It can also be applied directly to the SoS. Examples of this include a
flexible multi-vehicle transportation service or transportation as part of a commercial enterprise. In this case, the
NSoI aspect of the context no longer applies. The WSoI will consist of a set of cooperating systems, each of which
might be changed or replaced to aid in the synthesis of a solution. The context may also need to represent loose
coupling, with some systems moving in or out of the context depending on the need, or late binding with systems
joining the context only at, or close to, the delivery of the service.
Thus, a context allows a reductionist view of the SoI that is of direct concern to an observer, as it provides for the
system relationships and influences that are needed to maintain a holistic view of the consequence of any actions
taken.
Product System Context

The distinction between a product and a product system is discussed in the article Types of Systems.
A product system context would be one in which the SoI is the product itself. The wider system context for a product
system can be a higher level of product hierarchy, a service, or an enterprise system that uses the product directly to
help provide value to the user. A significant aspect of a product systems context is the clear statement of how the
product is intended to be used and ensures that this information is given to the acquirer upon delivery. The customer
will be required to accept the system, typically through a formal process, agreeing not to go against the terms of use.
If a systems approach is applied to a product context, it is done with the purpose of engineering a narrow system
product to be integrated and used in a wider system product hierarchy or to enable the delivery of a wider system
service directly to a user by an enterprise.
This view of the relationship between product and service is specific to product systems engineering. While some
engineering of the acquirer's static service system may occur, it is done with a product focus. The definition of
service system in a service systems engineering context describes a more dynamic view of service systems.
Service System Context

Services are activities that cause a transformation of the state of an entity (people, product, business, and region or
nation) by mutually agreed terms between the service provider and the customer (Spohrer 2008). The distinction
between service and a service system is discussed in the article Types of Systems.
A service system context is one in which the SoI is the service system. This SoI contains all of the technology,
infrastructure, people, resources, etc. that are needed to enable the service. The WSoI describes the enterprise
providing the service as well as its relationship with other services that impact the success of the enterprise.
If a systems approach is applied to a service system, it is done with the purpose of engineering a service system to
enable the outcomes required by an enterprise to satisfy its clients. When operating in the service system context, all
options to provide the service must be considered, providing that they fit within the constraints of the enterprise. This
will include interfaces to other services, people, and resources in the enterprise. If an option for providing the service
makes use of existing products or resources within or outside of the enterprise, it must be ensured that they are
available for this use and that this does not adversely affect other services. Part of getting the right service may
require the negotiation of changes to the wider enterprise context, but this must be by agreement with the relevant
authority.
For a service system, and also when considering the service system context, the value is realized only through
service transactions. The end-user co-creates value at the time of the request to use the service. For example, to make
a flight reservation using a smart phone, the service system is composed of many service system entities (the caller,
the person called, the smart phone, the access network, the core Internet Protocol (IP) network, the Internet Service
provider (ISP), the World Wide Web (WWW), data centers, etc. All these are necessary to enable the service. When
a caller makes a reservation and then books the flight, the value has been created.
This definition of a service system, as associated with dynamic Information Technology (IT) services, is discussed
further in the article Service Systems Engineering.
Enterprise System Context

The distinction between an enterprise and an enterprise system is discussed in the article Types of Systems.
An enterprise system context is one in which the SoI is the enterprise system. This system contains all of the
technology, infrastructure, people, resources, etc. needed to enable the service. The WSoI describes the business
environment within which the enterprise sits.
It is to be noted that an enterprise context is not equivalent to an organization according to this definition. An
enterprise includes not only the organizations that participate in it, but also the people, knowledge, and other assets,
such as processes, principles, policies, practices, doctrines, theories, beliefs, facilities, land, and intellectual property
that compose the enterprise.
An enterprise may contain or employ service systems along with product systems. An enterprise might even contain
sub-enterprises. Enterprise systems are unique when compared to product and service systems in that:
• they are constantly evolving
• they rarely have detailed configuration controlled requirements
• they typically have (constantly changing) goals of providing shareholder value and customer satisfaction
• they exist in a context (or environment) that is ill-defined and constantly changing
The enterprise systems engineer must consider and account for these factors in their processes and methods.
Both product and service systems require an enterprise system context to create them and an enterprise to use the
product system and deliver services, either internally to the enterprise or externally to a broader community. Thus,
the three types of engineered system contexts are linked in all instances, regardless of which type of system the
developers consider as the object of the development effort that is delivered to the customer.
References
Works Cited
Flood, R.L. 1987. "Some theoretical considerations of mathematical modeling." In Problems of Constancy and
Change (Proceedings of 31st Conference of the International Society for General Systems Research, Budapest),
Volume 1, pp. 354 - 360.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Spohrer, J. 2008. "Service science, management, engineering, and design (SSMED): An emerging discipline-outline
& references." International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, vol. 1, no. 3 (May).
Primary References
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Rouse, W.B. 2005. "Enterprises as systems: Essential challenges and enterprise transformation". Systems
Tien, J.M. and D. Berg. 2003. "A case for service systems engineering", Journal of Systems Science and Systems
ANSI/EIA. 2003. Processes for Engineering a System. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)/Electronic Industries Association (EIA). ANSI/EIA 632‐1998.
Bernus, P., L. Nemes, and G. Schmidt (eds.). 2003. Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer.
DeRosa, J. K. 2006. “An Enterprise Systems Engineering Model.” Proceedings of the 16th Annual International
Council on Systems Engineering, Orlando, FL, USA, 9-13 July 2006.
Giachetti, R.E. 2010. Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architecture, and Methods. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Press.
Joannou, P. 2007. "Enterprise, systems, and software—The need for integration." IEEE Computer, vol. 40, no. 5,
May, pp. 103-105.
Katzan, H. 2008. Service Science. Bloomington, IN, USA: iUniverse Books.
Maglio P., S. Srinivasan, J.T. Kreulen, and J. Spohrer. 2006. “Service Systems, Service Scientists, SSME, and
Innovation." Communications of the ACM. 49(7) (July).
Martin J.N. 1997. Systems Engineering Guidebook. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Rouse, W.B. 2009. "Engineering the enterprise as a system," Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management,,
2nd ed. A.P. Sage and W.B. Rouse (eds.). New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.
Tien, J.M. and D. Berg. 2003. "A Case for Service Systems Engineering," Journal of Systems Science and Systems
Valerdi, R. and D.J. Nightingale. 2011. "An introduction to the journal of enterprise transformation," Journal of
Enterprise Transformation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-6.

Identifying and Understanding Problems and

Opportunities
Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Brian Wells, Scott Jackson, Janet Singer, Duane Hybertson, Bud
Lawson
This topic is part of the Systems Approach Applied to

knowledge related to the identification and exploration
of problems or opportunities in detail. The problem
situations described by the activities in this topic may The "Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems" knowledge
form a starting point for Synthesizing Possible area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
Solutions. Any of the activities described below may

also need to be considered concurrently with other activities in the systems approach at a particular point in the life
of a system-of-interest (SoI).
The activities described below should be considered in the context of the Overview of the Systems Approach topic at
the start of this KA. The final topic in this knowledge area, Applying the Systems Approach, considers the dynamic
aspects of how these activities are used as part of the systems approach and how this relates in detail to elements of
systems engineering (SE).
The phrase "problem or opportunity" used herein recognizes that the "problem" is not always a negative situation and
can also be a positive opportunity to improve a situation.
Introduction
According to Jenkins (1969), the first step in the systems approach is “the recognition and formulation of the
problem.” The systems approach described in the Guide to the SE Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) is predominantly a
hard system approach. The analysis, synthesis, and proving parts of the approach assume a problem or opportunity
has been identified and agreed upon and that a "new" engineered system solution is needed.
However, the systems approach does not have to apply to the development and use of a newly designed and built
technical solution. Abstract or experimental solutions to potential problems might be explored to help achieve
agreement on a problem context. Solutions may involve reorganizing existing systems of systems (SoS) contexts or
the modification or re-use of existing products and services. The problem and opportunity parts of the approach
overlap with soft system approaches. This is discussed in more detail below.
One thing that must be considered in relation to system complexity is that the opportunity situation may be difficult
to fully understand; therefore, system solutions may not solve the problem the first time, but is still useful in
increasing the understanding of both problem issues and what to try next to work toward a solution.
Hence, problem exploration and identification is often not a one-time process that specifies the problem, but is used
in combination with solution synthesis and analysis to progress toward a more complete understanding of problems
and solutions over time (see Applying the Systems Approach for a more complete discussion of the dynamics of this
aspect of the approach).
Problem Exploration
Soft system thinking does not look for "the problem," but considers a problematic situation. Forming systems views
of this situation can help stakeholders better understand each other's viewpoints and provide a starting point for
directed intervention in the current system context. If a full soft systems intervention is undertaken, such as a soft
systems methodology (SSM) (Checkland 1999), it will not include formal analysis, synthesis, and proving. However,
the SSM method was originally based on hard methodologies, particularly one presented by Jenkins (1969). It
follows the basic principles of a systems approach: "analyzing" conceptual models of shared understanding,
"synthesizing" intervention strategies, and "proving" improvements in the problematic situation.
Often, the distinction between hard and soft methods is not as clear cut as the theory might suggest. Checkland
himself has been involved in applications of SSM as part of the development of information system design
(Checkland and Holwell 1998). It is now agreed upon by many that while there is a role for a "pure soft system"
approach, the service and enterprise problems now being tackled can only be dealt with successfully by a
combination of soft problematic models and hard system solutions. Mingers and White (2009) give a number of
relevant examples of this. In particular, they reference "Process and Content: Two Ways of Using SSM" (Checkland
and Winters 2006). It is likely in the future that engineered system problems will be stated, solved, and used as part
of a predominately soft intervention, which will place pressure on the speed of development needed in the solution
space. This is discussed more fully in the topic Life Cycle Models.
The critical systems thinking and multi-methodology approaches (Jackson 1985) take this further by advocating a
"pick and mix" approach, in which the most appropriate models and techniques are chosen to fit the problem rather
than following a single methodology (Mingers and Gill 1997). Thus, even if the hard problem identification
approach described below is used, some use of the soft system techniques (such as rich pictures, root definitions, or
conceptual models) should be considered within it.
Problem Identification
Hard system thinking is based on the premise that a problem exists and can be stated by one or more stakeholders in
an objective way. This does not mean that hard systems approaches start with a defined problem. Exploring the
potential problem with key stakeholders is still an important part of the approach.
According to Blanchard and Fabrycky (2006, 55-56), defining a problem is sometimes the most important and
difficult step. In short, a system cannot be defined unless it is possible to clearly describe what it is supposed to
accomplish.
According to Edson (2008, 26-29), there are three kinds of questions that need to be asked to ensure we fully
understand a problem situation. First, how difficult or well understood is the problem? The answer to this question
will help define the tractability of the problem. Problems can be “tame,” “regular,” or “wicked”:
• For tame problems, the solution may be well-defined and obvious.
• Regular problems are those that are encountered on a regular basis. Their solutions may not be obvious, thus
serious attention should be given to every aspect of them.
• Wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973) cannot be fully solved, or perhaps even fully defined. Additionally,
with wicked problems, it is not possible to understand the full effect of applying systems to the problem.
Next, who or what is impacted? There may be elements of the situation that are causing the problem, elements that
are impacted by the problem, and elements that are just in the loop. Beyond these factors, what is the environment
and what are the external factors that affect the problem? In examining these aspects, the tools and methods of
systems thinking can be productively applied.
Finally, what are the various viewpoints of the problem? Does everyone think it is a problem? Perhaps there are
conflicting viewpoints. All these viewpoints need to be defined. Persons affected by the system, who stand to benefit
from the system, or can be harmed by the system, are called stakeholders. Wasson (2006, 42-45) provides a
comprehensive list of stakeholder types. The use of soft systems models, as discussed above, can play an important
part in this. Describing a problem using situation views can be useful when considering these issues, even if a single
problem perspective is selected for further consideration.
Operations research is a hard systems method which concentrates on solving problem situations by deploying known
solutions. The problem analysis step of a typical approach asks questions about the limitation and cost of the current
system to identify efficiency improvements that need to be made (Flood and Carson 1993).
Traditional SE methods tend to focus more on describing an abstract model of the problem, which is then used to
develop a solution that will produce the benefits stakeholders expect to see (Jenkins 1969). The expectation is often
that a new solution must be created, although this need not be the case. Jenkins suggests that SE is just as applicable
to a redesign of existing systems. A clear understanding of stakeholder expectations in this regard should produce a
better understanding of part of the problem. Do stakeholders expect a new solution or modifications to their existing
solutions, or are they genuinely open to solution alternatives which consider the pros and cons of either? Such
expectations will influence suggestions of solution alternatives, as discussed in the Synthesizing Possible Solutions
article.
An important factor in defining the desired stakeholder outcomes, benefits, and constraints is the operational
environment, or scenario, in which the problem or opportunity exists. Armstrong (2009, 1030) suggests two
scenarios: the first is the descriptive scenario, or the situation as it exists now, and the second is the normative
scenario, or the situation as it may exist sometime in the future.
All of these aspects of problem understanding can be related to the concept of a system context.
Problem Context
The Engineered System Context topic identifies a way by which a complex system situation can be resolved around
a system-of-interest (SoI). The initial identification of a "problem context" can be considered as the outcome of this
part of the systems approach.
The systems approach should not consider only soft or hard situations. More appropriately, a problem or opportunity
should be explored using aspects of both. In general, the application of the systems approach with a focus on
engineered system contexts will lead to hard system contexts in which an identified SoI and required outcome can be
defined.
An initial description of the wider SoI and environment serves as the problem or opportunity problem scope. Desired
stakeholder benefits are expressed as outcomes in the wider system and some initial expression of what the SoI is
intended for may be identified. Jenkins (1969) defines a problem formulation approach where one:
• states the aim of the SoI
• defines the wider SoI
• defines the objectives of the wider SoI
• defines the objectives of the system
• defines economic, informational, and other conditions
In a hard system problem context, a description of a logical or ideal system solution may be included. This ideal
system cannot be implemented directly, but describes the properties required of any realizable system solution.
To support this problem or opportunity description, a soft context view of the SoI will help ensure wider stakeholder
concerns are considered. If a soft system context has been defined, it may include a conceptual model (Checkland
1999) which describes the logical elements of a system that resolve the problem situation and how they are perceived
by different stakeholders. Unlike the hard system view, this does not describe the ideal solution, but provides an
alternative view on how aspects of any solution would be viewed by potential stakeholders.
In problem contexts with a strong coercive dimension, the problem context should include an identification of the
relative power and the importance of stakeholders.
The problem context should include some boundaries on the cost, time to deployment, time in use, and operational
effectiveness needed by stakeholders. In general, both the full problem context and an agreed version of the problem
to be tackled next are described. (See Applying the Systems Approach.)
References
Works Cited
Armstrong, Jr., J.E., 2009. "Issue formulation." in A.P. Sage and W.B. Rouse (eds.). Handbook of Systems
Engineering and Management, 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Blanchard, B. and W.J. Fabrycky. 2006. Systems Engineering and Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice
Hall.
Checkland, P. and S. Holwell. 1998. Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Checkland, P. and M. Winter. 2006. "Process and content: Two ways of using SSM," Journal of Operational
Research Society, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 1435-1441.
Flood, R. L. and E.R. Carson 1993. Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of
Jenkins, G.M. 1969. "The systems approach," The Journal of Systems Engineering, vol. 1, no. (1).
Mingers, J. and A. Gill. 1997. Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science
Methodologies. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Mingers, J. and L. White. 2009. A Review of Recent Contributions of Systems Thinking to Operational Research and
Management Science, Working Paper 197. Canterbury, UK: Kent Business School.
Rittel, H. and M. Webber. 1973. "Dilemmas in a general theory of planning," Policy Sciences, vol. 4, pp. 155–169.
Wasson, C.S. 2006. System Analysis, Design, and Development. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Primary References
Blanchard, B. & W.J. Fabrycky. 2006. Systems Engineering and Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice
Hall.
None

Synthesizing Possible Solutions


knowledge related to the synthesis of possible solution
options in response to the problem situations described
by activities from Identifying and Understanding The "Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems" knowledge
Problems and Opportunities topic. The solution options area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
proposed by the synthesis activities will form the

starting point for the Analysis and Selection between Alternative Solutions. Any of the activities described below
may also need to be considered concurrently with other activities in the systems approach at a particular point in the
life of a system-of-interest (SoI).
the start of this KA. The final topic in this KA, Applying the Systems Approach, considers the dynamic aspects of
how these activities are used as part of the systems approach and how this relates in detail to elements of systems
engineering (SE).
Synthesis Overview
System synthesis is an activity within the systems approach that is used to describe one or more system solutions
based upon a problem context for the life cycle of the system to:
• Define options for a SoI with the required properties and behavior for an identified problem or opportunity
context.
• Provide solution options relevant to the SoI in its intended environment, such that the options can be assessed to
be potentially realizable within a prescribed time limit, cost, and risk described in the problem context.
• Assess the properties and behavior of each candidate solution in its wider system context.
The iterative activity of system synthesis develops possible solutions and may make some overall judgment
regarding the feasibility of said solutions. The detailed judgment on whether a solution is suitable for a given
iteration of the systems approach is made using the Analysis and Selection between Alternative Solutions activities.
Essential to synthesis is the concept of holism(Hitchins 2009), which states that a system must be considered as a
whole and not simply as a collection of its elements. The holism of any potential solution system requires that the
behavior of the whole be determined by addressing a system within an intended environment and not simply the
accumulation of the properties of the elements. The latter process is known as reductionism and is the opposite of
holism, which Hitchins (2009, 60) describes as the notion that “the properties, capabilities, and behavior of a system
derive from its parts, from interactions between those parts, and from interactions with other systems.”
When the system is considered as a whole, properties called emergent properties often appear (see Emergence).
These properties are often difficult to predict from the properties of the elements alone. They must be evaluated
within the systems approach to determine the complete set of performance levels of the system. According to
Jackson (2010), these properties can be considered in the design of a system, but to do so, an iterative approach is
required.
In complex systems, individual elements will adapt to the behavior of the other elements and to the system as a
whole. The entire collection of elements will behave as an organic whole. Therefore, the entire synthesis activity,
particularly in complex systems, must itself be adaptive.
Hence, synthesis is often not a one-time process of solution design, but is used in combination with problem
understanding and solution analysis to progress towards a more complete understanding of problems and solutions
over time (see Applying the Systems Approach topic for a more complete discussion of the dynamics of this aspect
of the approach).
Problem or Opportunity Context

System synthesis needs the problem or opportunity that the system is intended to address to have already been
identified and described and for non-trivial systems, the problem or opportunity needs to be identified and
understood concurrently with solution synthesis activities.
As discussed in Identifying and Understanding Problems and Opportunities, the systems approach should not
consider strictly soft or hard situations. In general, the application of the systems approach, with a focus on
engineered system contexts, will lead to hard system contexts in which an identified SoI and required outcome are
defined. Even in these cases, a soft context view of the SoI context will help ensure wider stakeholder concerns are
considered.
The problem context should include some boundaries on the cost, time to deployment, time in use, and operational
effectiveness needed by stakeholders. In general, the goal is not to synthesize the perfect solution to a problem, but
rather to find the best available solution for the agreed version of the problem.
Synthesis Activities
The following activities provide an outline for defining the SoI: grouping of elements, identification of the
interactions among the elements, identification of interfaces between elements, identification of external interfaces to
the SoI boundary and common sub-elements within the SoI boundary.
The activities of systems synthesis are built on the idea of a balanced reduction vs. holism approach as discussed in
What is Systems Thinking? topic. It is necessary to divide system elements and functions to create a description of
the SoI which is realizable, either through combinations of available elements or through the design and construction
of new elements. However, if the system is simply decomposed into smaller and smaller elements, the holistic nature
of systems will make it more and more difficult to predict the function and behavior of the whole. Thus, synthesis
progresses through activities that divide, group, and allocate elements, and then assesses the complete system’s
properties in context relevant to the user need the SoI will fulfill. Hence, synthesis occurs over the entire life cycle of
the system as the system and its environment change.
Identification of the Boundary of a System

Establishing the boundary of a system is essential to synthesis, the determination of the system's interaction with its
environment and with other systems, and the extent of the SoI. Buede (2009, 1102) provides a comprehensive
discussion of the importance of, and methods of, defining the boundary of a system in a SE context.
Identification of the Functions of the System

The function of a system at a given level of abstraction is critical to synthesis since the primary goal of the synthesis
activity is to propose realizable system descriptions which can provide a given function. The function of a system is
distinct from its behavior as it describes what the system can be used for or is asked to do in a larger system context.
Buede (2009, 1091-1126) provides a comprehensive description of functional analysis in a SE context.
Identification of the Elements of a System

System synthesis calls for the identification of the elements of a system. Typical elements of an Engineered System
Context may be physical, conceptual, or processes. Physical elements may be hardware, software, or humans.
Conceptual elements may be ideas, plans, concepts, or hypotheses. Processes may be mental, mental-motor (writing,
drawing, etc.), mechanical, or electronic (Blanchard and Fabrycky 2006, 7).
In addition to the elements of the system under consideration (i.e., a SoI), ISO 15288 (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 2015)
also calls for the identification of the enabling systems. These are systems (or services) utilized at various stages in
the life cycle, e.g., development, utilization or support stages, to facilitate the SoI in achieving its objectives.
Today's systems often include existing elements. It is rare to find a true "greenfield" system, in which the developers
can specify and implement all new elements from scratch. "Brownfield" systems, wherein legacy elements constrain
the system structure, capabilities, technology choices, and other aspects of implementation, are much more typical
(Boehm 2009).
Division of System Elements

System synthesis may require elements to be divided into smaller elements. The division of elements into smaller
elements allows the systems to be grouped and leads to the SE concept of physical architecture, as described by
Levin (2009, 493-495). Each layer of division leads to another layer of the hierarchical view of a system. As Levin
points out, there are many ways to depict the physical architecture, including the use of wiring diagrams, block
diagrams, etc. All of these views depend on arranging the elements and dividing them into smaller elements.
According to the principle of recursion, these decomposed elements are either terminal elements, or are
decomposable. The hierarchical view does not imply a top-down analytical approach to defining a system. It is
simply a view. In the systems approach, levels of the hierarchy are defined and considered recursively with one level
forming the context for the next.
Grouping of System Elements

System synthesis may require that elements be grouped. This leads to the identification of the sub-systems that are
essential to the definition of a system. Synthesis determines how a system may be partitioned and how each
sub-system fits and functions within the whole system. The largest group is the SoI, also called the relevant system
by Checkland (1999, 166). According to Hitchins, some of the properties of a SoI are as follows: the SoI is open and
dynamic, the SoI interacts with other systems, and the SoI contains sub-systems (Hitchins 2009, 61). The SoI is
brought together through the concept of synthesis.
Identification of the Interactions among System Elements

System synthesis may require the identification of the interactions among system elements. These interactions lead
to the SE process of interface analysis. Integral to this aspect is the principle of interactions. Interactions occur both
with other system elements as well as with external elements and the environment. In a systems approach, interfaces
have both a technical and managerial importance. Managerial aspects include the contracts between interfacing
organizations. Technical aspects include the properties of the physical and functional interfaces. Browning provides
a list of desirable characteristics of both technical and managerial interface characteristics (Browning 2009,
1418-1419) .
System synthesis will include activities to understand the properties of system elements, the structure of proposed
system solutions, and the resultant behavior of the composed system. A number of system concepts for describing
system behavior are discussed in the Concepts of Systems Thinking topic. It should be noted that in order to fully
understand a system’s behavior, we must consider the full range of environments in which it might be placed and its
allowable state in each. According to Page, in complex systems, the individual elements of the system are
characterized by properties which enhance the systems as a whole, such as their adaptability (Page 2009).
Defining the System-of-Interest

Flood and Carson provide two ways to identify system boundaries: a bottom-up, or structural approach, which
starts with significant system elements and builds out, and a top down, or behavioral approach, in which major
systems needed to fulfill a goal are identified and then the work flows downward (Flood and Carson 1993). They
identify a number of rules proposed by Beishon (1980) and Jones (1982) to help in the selection of the best approach.
In either case, the ways in which system elements are refined, grouped, and allocated must be driven towards the
synthesis of a realizable system solution description. A realizable solution must consider elements that are either
already available, can be created from existing system elements, or are themselves described as system contexts
which will need to be synthesized at a future point. In the third case, it is one of the outcomes of the Analysis and
Selection between Alternative Solutions activities that is used to assess the risk that a given element may not be able
to be synthesized in the required time limit or cost budget.
A top down approach might start with a system boundary and an overall description of system functions. Through
the repeated application of element identification, division, grouping, and allocation of functions, a complete
description of the elements needed for the SoI can be defined. In this case, the choice of system elements and
allocation of functions may be guided by pre-defined ways of solving a given problem or by identified system
patterns; both can support as well as insert bias into the synthesis. For example, one might start with the need to
provide energy to a new housing project and propose solution options based around connections to an existing power
grid, local power generators, renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency, etc.
The iterative nature of analysis also reflects the need to change the solution as the life cycle progresses and changes
the system's environment; thereby, possibly changing what a "best" solution is.
A bottom up approach starts with major elements and interactions. Again, division, grouping, and identification
allows for the construction of a full system description that is capable of providing all the necessary functions, at
which point the final SoI boundary can be set. In this case, the choice of system elements and groupings will be
driven by the goal of ensuring that the major system elements can be formed together into a viable system whole. For
example, there may be a need to replace an existing delivery vehicle and produce solution options that consider
vehicle ownership/leasing, driver training, petrol, diesel or electric fuel, etc.
The systems approach aspect of synthesis leads to SE terms such as “design” and “development.” Wasson describes
synthesis from a SE point of view (Wasson 2006, 390-690). White provides a comprehensive discussion of methods
of achieving design synthesis (White 2009, 512-515). The systems approach treats synthesis at the abstract level
while the SE process definitions provide the concrete steps.
The SoI brings together elements, sub-systems and systems through the concept of synthesis to identify a solution
option.
Synthesis of possible solutions may result in the development of artifacts documenting the synthesis itself and
provide the basis for analysis and selection between alternative solutions. These artifacts are dynamic and will
change as the SoI changes its environment throughout the system life cycle.
References
Works Cited
Beishon, J. 1980. Systems Organisations: The Management of Complexity. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University
Press.
Hall.
Boehm, B. 2009. "Applying the Incremental Commitment Model to Brownfield System Development". Proceedings
of the 7th Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), Loughborough, UK.
Browning, T.R. 2009. "Using the design structure matrix to design program organizations," in Sage, A.P. and W.B.
Rouse (eds.). Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Buede, D.M. 2009. "Functional analysis," in Sage, A.P. and W.B. Rouse (eds.). Handbook of Systems Engineering
and Management, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Checkand, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the general principles applicable to systems?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 12, no. 4,
December, pp. 59-63.
INCOSE. 1998. "INCOSE SE Terms Glossary." INCOSE Concepts and Terms WG (eds.). Seattle, WA, USA:
International Council on Systems Engineering.
Jackson, S., D. Hitchins, and H. Eisner. 2010. "What is the systems approach?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 13, no. 1,
April, pp. 41-43.
Jones, L. 1982. "Defining system boundaries in practice: Some proposals and guidelines," Journal of Applied
Systems Analysis, vol. 9, pp. 41-55.
Levin, A.H. 2009. "System architectures," in Sage, A.P. and W.B. Rouse (eds.). Handbook of Systems Engineering
Page, S.E. 2009. "Understanding Complexity." The Great Courses. Chantilly, VA, USA: The Teaching Company.
Wasson, C.S. 2006. System Analysis, Design, and Development. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
White, Jr., K.P. 2009. "Systems design," in Sage, A.P. and W.B. Rouse (eds.). Handbook of Systems Engineering
Primary References
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the general principles applicable to systems?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 12, no. 4,
December, pp. 59-63.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015. Systems and software engineering -- System life cycle processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organisation for Standardisation/International Electrotechnical Commissions / Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineer. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
Jackson, S., D. Hitchins and H. Eisner. 2010. "What is the systems approach?" INCOSE Insight, vol. 13, no. 1, April,
pp. 41-43.
None

Analysis and Selection between Alternative

Solutions

knowledge related to the analysis and selection of a
preferred solution from the possible options, which
may have been proposed by Synthesizing Possible The "Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems" knowledge
Solutions. Selected solution options may form the area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
starting point for Implementing and Proving a Solution.

Any of the activities described below may also need to be considered concurrently with other activities in the
systems approach at a particular point in the life of a system-of-interest (SoI).
engineering (SE).
System Analysis
System analysis is an activity in the systems approach that evaluates one or more system artifacts created during the
activities involved in Synthesizing Possible Solutions, such as:
• Defining assessment criteria based on the required properties and behavior of an identified problem or
opportunity system situation.
• Accessing the properties and behavior of each candidate solution in comparison to the criteria.
• Comparing the assessments of the candidate solutions and identification of any that could resolve the problem or
exploit the opportunities, along with the selection of candidates that should be further explored.
As discussed in Synthesizing Possible Solutions topic, the problem context for an engineered system will include a
logical or ideal system solution description. It is assumed that the solution that “best” matches the ideal one will be
the most acceptable solution to the stakeholders. Note, as discussed below, the “best” solution should include an
understanding of cost and risk, as well as effectiveness. The problem context may include a soft system conceptual
model describing the logical elements of a system to resolve the problem situation and how these are perceived by
different stakeholders (Checkland 1999). This soft context view will provide additional criteria for the analysis
process, which may become the critical issue in selecting between two equally effective solution alternatives.
Hence, analysis is often not a one-time process of solution selection; rather, it is used in combination with problem
understanding and solution synthesis to progress towards a more complete understanding of problems and solutions
over time (see Applying the Systems Approach topic for a more complete discussion of the dynamics of this aspect
of the approach).
Effectiveness Analysis
Effectiveness studies use the problem or opportunity system context as a starting point.
The effectiveness of a synthesized system solution will include performance criteria associated with both the
system’s primary and enabling functions. These are derived from the system’s purpose, in order to enable the
realization of stakeholder needs in one or more, wider system contexts.
For a product system, there are a set of generic non-functional qualities that are associated with different types of
solution patterns or technology, e.g., safety, security, reliability, maintainability, usability, etc. These criteria are
often explicitly stated as parts of the domain knowledge of related technical disciplines in technology domains.
For a service system or enterprise system, the criteria will be more directly linked to the identified user needs or
enterprise goals. Typical qualities for such systems include agility, resilience, flexibility, upgradeability, etc.
In addition to assessments of the absolute effectiveness of a given solution system, systems engineers must also be
able to combine effectiveness with the limitations of cost and timescales included in the problem context. In general,
the role of system analysis is to identify the proposed solutions which can provide some effectiveness within the cost
and time allocated to any given iteration of the systems approach (see Applying the Systems Approach for details). If
none of the solutions can deliver an effectiveness level that justifies the proposed investment, then it is necessary to
return to the original framing of the problem. If at least one solution is assessed as sufficiently effective, then a
choice between solutions can be proposed.
Trade-Off Studies
In the context of the definition of a system, a trade-off study consists of comparing the characteristics of each
candidate system element to those of each candidate system architecture in order to determine the solution that
globally balances the assessment criteria in the best way. The various characteristics analyzed are gathered in cost
analysis, technical risks analysis, and effectiveness analysis (NASA 2007). To accomplish a trade off study, there are
a variety of methods, often supported by tooling. Each class of analysis is the subject of the following topics:
• Assessment criteria are used to classify the various candidate solutions. They are either absolute or relative. For
example, the maximum cost per unit produced is c$, cost reduction shall be x%, effectiveness improvement is
y%, and risk mitigation is z%.
• Boundaries identify and limit the characteristics or criteria to be taken into account at the time of analysis (e.g.,
the kind of costs to be taken into account, acceptable technical risks, and the type and level of effectiveness).
• Scales are used to quantify the characteristics, properties, and/or criteria and to make comparisons. Their
definition requires knowledge of the highest and lowest limits, as well as the type of evolution of the
characteristic (linear, logarithmic, etc.).
• An assessment score is assigned to a characteristic or criterion for each candidate solution. The goal of the
trade-off study is to succeed in quantifying the three variables (and their decomposition in sub-variables) of cost,
risk, and effectiveness for each candidate solution. This operation is generally complex and requires the use of
models.
• The optimization of the characteristics or properties improves the scoring of interesting solutions.
A decision-making process is not an accurate science; ergo, trade-off studies have limits. The following concerns
should be taken into account:
• Subjective Criteria – personal bias of the analyst; for example, if the component has to be beautiful, what
constitutes a “beautiful” component?
• Uncertain Data – for example, inflation has to be taken into account to estimate the cost of maintenance during
the complete life cycle of a system; how can a systems engineer predict the evolution of inflation over the next
five years?
• Sensitivity Analysis – A global assessment score that is designated to every candidate solution is not absolute;
thus, it is recommended that a robust selection is gathered by performing a sensitivity analysis that considers
small variations of assessment criteria values (weights). The selection is robust if the variations do not change the
order of scores.
A thorough trade-off study specifies the assumptions, variables, and confidence intervals of the results.
Systems Principles of System Analysis

From the discussions above, the following general principles of systems analysis can be defined:
• Systems analysis is an iterative activity consisting of trade studies made between various solution options from
the systems synthesis activity.
• Systems analysis uses assessment criteria based upon a problem or opportunity system description.
• These criteria will be based around an ideal system description that assumes a hard system problem context
can be defined.
• The criteria must consider required system behavior and properties of the complete solution in all of the
possible wider system contexts and environments.
• Trade studies require equal consideration to the primary system and the enabling system working as a single
system to address the user need. These studies need to consider system requirements for Key Performance
Parameters (KPPs), systems safety, security, and affordability across the entire life cycle.
• This ideal system description may be supported by soft system descriptions from which additional “soft”
criteria may be defined (e.g., a stakeholder preference for or against certain kinds of solutions and relevant
social, political, or cultural conventions to be considered in the likely solution environment, etc.).
• At a minimum, the assessment criteria should include the constraints on cost and time scales acceptable to
stakeholders.
• Trade studies provide a mechanism for conducting analysis of alternative solutions.
• A trade study should consider a “system of assessment criteria,” designating special attention to the limitations
and dependencies between individual criteria.
• Trade studies need to deal with both objective and subjective criteria. Care must be taken to assess the
sensitivity of the overall assessment to particular criteria.
References
Works Cited
NASA. 2007. Systems Engineering Handbook, Revision 1. Washington, D.C., USA: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). NASA/SP-2007-6105.
Primary References
Electronics Engineer. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
pp. 41-43.
None.

Implementing and Proving a Solution


knowledge related to the implementation and proving
of a preferred solution that may have been selected by
activities described in the Analysis and Selection The "Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems" knowledge
between Alternative Solutions topic. The activities that area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
apply to an implemented solution during its operational

life are described in Deploying, Using, and Sustaining Systems to Solve Problems topic, and how systems fit into
commercial and acquisition relationships is discussed in the Introduction to System Fundamentals topic. Any of the
activities described below may also need to be considered concurrently with other activities in the systems approach
at a particular point in the life of a system-of-interest (SoI).
engineering (SE).
Proving the System Overview

This topic covers both the sub-topics of verification and validation.
Verification
Verification is the determination that each element of the system meets the requirements of a documented
specification (see principle of elements). Verification is performed at each level of the system hierarchy. In the
systems approach, this topic pertains to the more abstract level of providing evidence that the system will accomplish
what it was meant to do. In SE, this topic pertains to providing quantitative evidence from tests and other methods
for verifying the performance of the system.
Implementing and Proving a Solution 241
Validation
Validation is the determination that the entire system meets the needs of the stakeholders. Validation only occurs at
the top level of the system hierarchy. In the systems approach, this topic pertains to the more abstract level of
ensuring the system meets the needs of the stakeholders. In SE, this topic pertains to the detailed demonstrations and
other methods that are used to promote stakeholder satisfaction.
In a SE context, Wasson provides a comprehensive guide to the methods of both system verification and system
validation (Wasson 2006, 691-709).
References
Works Cited
Wasson, C. S. 2006. System Analysis, Design, and Development. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Primary References
pp. 41-43.
MITRE. 2012. "Verification and validation," in Systems Engineering Guide. Available at: http:/ / mitre. org/ work/
systems_engineering/ guide/ se_lifecycle_building_blocks/ test_evaluation/ verification_validation. html. Accessed
September 11, 2012.
Wasson, C. S. 2006. System Analysis, Design, and Development. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Deploying, Using, and Sustaining Systems to

Solve Problems

knowledge related to the deployment, sustainment, and
use of a solution that may have been developed through
the activities described in the Implementing and The "Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems" knowledge
Proving a Solution topic. Discussion of how a deployed area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
system fits into commercial and acquisition

relationships is present in Introduction to System Fundamentals. Any of the activities described below may also need
to be considered concurrently with other activities in the systems approach at a particular point in the life of a
system-of-interest (SoI).
engineering (SE).
Introduction
Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management, of the Guide to the SE Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) provides two
additional KAs that address the engineering aspects of these steps of the systems approach. KAs Product and Service
Life Management and System Deployment and Use in Part 3 explain the SE aspects of deployment, operation,
maintenance, logistics, service life extension, updates, upgrades, disposal and the retirement of systems.
A systems approach considers the total system and the total life cycle of the system. This includes all aspects of the
system and the system throughout its life until the day users depose of the system and the external enterprises
complete the handling of the disposed system products. Creation of the system is rarely the step that solves the
stakeholders’ problems. It is the use of the system solution that solves the problem. From this perspective the
deployment, use and sustainment of the system are important concepts that must be a part of the systems approach.
Engineered systems are eventually owned by an individual, team, or enterprise. Those who own the system during
development may not be the ones who own the system when it is in operation. Moreover, the owners may not be the
users; e.g., service systems may be used by the general public but owned by a specific business that offers the
service. The transition of a system from development to operations is often itself a complex task, involving such
activities as training those who will operate the system, taking legal actions to complete the transfer, and establishing
logistical arrangements so that the operators can keep the system running once the transition is completed.
A complete systems approach must also consider the many enterprises involved in the system from initial conception
through the completion of the disposal process. These enterprises are all stakeholders with requirements, which all
have interfaces that must be considered as part of a total systems approach.
There is very little in the literature pertaining to the application of the systems approach to these phases of the life
cycle. However, a basic premise of this KA is that the systems approach pertains to all phases of a system’s life
cycle. Hence, to properly build systems to solve problems or for other uses, it can be inferred that the systems
approach pertains to the deployment, use, and the sustainment of the systems. Many of the available references in
this topic area are from SE literature rather than from literature associated with the systems approach; the reader
should also see Part 3 of the SEBoK, Systems Engineering and Management.
Deployment: The Transition from Development to Operation

Transferring custody of the SoI and responsibility for its support from one organization to another occurs during
deployment and is often called transition (INCOSE 2011). Transition of a product system includes the integration of
the system into the acquiring organization's infrastructure. Deployment and transition involves the activity of moving
the system from the development to the operational location(s), along with the support systems necessary to
accomplish the relocation.
Transition includes the initial installation of a system and the determination that it is compatible with the wider
system and does not cause any significant wider system issues. This process of acceptance and release for use varies
between domains and across businesses and enterprises, and can be thought of as an initial assessment of the
system’s effectiveness (Hitchins 2007). Generally, transition may be considered as having two parts: 1.) ensuring that
the new system interoperability with the systems around it and 2.) ensuring the resulting system is safe and possesses
other critical operational properties.
It is particularly important to consider emergent properties when a new system is added to the existing organization's
system of systems (SoS) network, as well as the complexity of the organization into which the new system is
transitioned (see also Complexity). The more complex the receiving organization is, the more challenging the
transition will be, and the greater the likelihood of unintended interactions and consequences from the new system's
insertion. Dealing with the consequences of this complexity starts in transition and continues into operation,
maintenance, and disposal.
Transition of a service system is often performed in two stages. First, the service system infrastructure is accepted
and released. Second, each realization of the service is accepted and released. There can be significant problems
during the second stage if the required responsiveness of the service does not leave sufficient time to ensure that the
service meets necessary functional and quality attributes, including interoperability, safety, and security. (See
Service Systems Engineering.)
Transition and deployment of a system may introduce unique requirements that are not necessary for operation or
use. These requirements can influence the design of the system; therefore, must be considered during the initial
requirements and design stages. The most common examples are related to the need to transport the system or
system elements, which often limits the size and weight of the system elements.
Transition can also require its own enabling systems, each of which can be realized using a systems approach.
Use: Operation
Use of the system to help enable delivery of user services is often called “operations” (INCOSE 2011). A system’s
effectiveness is normally considered throughout the operational life of a system. For a complex system, emergent
behavior should be considered in three ways:
• to identify and plan for emergent properties within the system realization process (See System Realization KA in
Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management)
• to incorporate mechanisms for identifying and handling unexpected emergent properties within the system during
its use
• to provide necessary procedures for dealing with wider system consequences of unexpected emergent properties
in the enterprise (e.g., emergency responses or medical first aid)
Operations require their own enabling systems, each of which can be realized using a systems approach.
System Sustainment and Maintenance

System sustainment requires maintenance of the system throughout its useful life (INCOSE 2011). In system terms,
maintenance implements systems that handle entropy and maintaining the SoI in a viable state. Since an open system
maintains its existence by continual exchange of energy, information, and materiel with its environment, one aspect
of its maintenance must be the management of resources in the environment.
Hitchins (2007) describes generic approaches to resource management and viability management based on systems
concepts. Resource management identifies the need to consider the acquisition, storage, distribution, conversion, and
disposal of resources. Viability management should consider systems to maintain homeostasis and a means for
ensuring resilience to environmental disturbance and adaptability to environmental change.
Maintenance will require its own enabling systems, each of which can be realized using a systems approach.
Maintenance success is more likely if it is considered as part of the system concept and design well before the
system enters service.
Disposal
A total life cycle systems approach cannot be considered complete without consideration of how disposal of the
system will be accomplished. The purpose of disposal is to remove a system element from the operational
environment with the intent of permanently terminating its use, and remove any hazardous or toxic materials or
waste products (INCOSE 2011).
During disposal, the entirety of the open system crosses the boundary from the system side to the environment. A
complete systems approach must consider how it crosses the boundary and what remains that must be managed by
enterprises other than the ones that developed, used or sustained the system. Including disposal in the system
approach expands the stakeholders, the enterprises and the external systems that must be considered.
Disposal requires its own enabling systems, each of which can be realized using a systems approach. Some of these
may be contained within the system boundaries and others may be external to the system. For the external disposal
systems, the interface where the handover occurs must be considered. As with maintenance, a large part of successful
disposal requires related issues to have been considered early on in the system’s life cycle.
The topic Disposal and Retirement in Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management, of the SEBoK provides
information on the engineering aspects of system disposal.
References
Works Cited
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and
Sons.
INCOSE. 2012. INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, version 3.2.2. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council
on Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Primary References
Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.1.
MITRE. 2011. "Transformation planning and organizational change," in Systems Engineering Guide. Available at:
http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ enterprise_engineering/
transformation_planning_org_change/.Accessed December 4, 2014.

Applying the Systems Approach

Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Brian Wells, Scott Jackson, Janet Singer, Duane Hybertson,
Hillary Sillitto, Bud Lawson, James Martin
The systems approach relates to both the dynamics of

problem resolution and stakeholder value over time, as
well as to the levels of system relationship, detailed
management, and the engineering activities this
implies. The "Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems" knowledge
area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
This article builds on the concepts introduced in
Overview of the Systems Approach topic. It is part of
the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems knowledge area (KA), which describes, primarily through
five groups of activities, the application of an approach based around systems thinking to engineered system contexts
throughout their lives.
Life Cycle
Engineered Systems provide outcomes which deliver benefits to stakeholders by helping them achieve something of
value in one or more problem situations. Ultimately, a system is successful only if it enables successful outcomes for
its stakeholders (Boehm and Jain 2006). In complex real world situations, value can best be provided through a
continuing process of adapting the system needs and developing associated solutions in response to changing
circumstances, according to the principle of Progressive Satisfying (Hitchins 2009).
A value cycle associating the systems approach to the delivery of real world stakeholder benefits is discussed in the
Overview of the Systems Approach topic. A greater understanding of the value of an engineered system within its
context enables agreement on the problem situation and appropriate system interventions to be created, deployed,
and used overall, in turn enabling a more effective application of the systems approach. Value is fully realized only
when considered within the context of time, cost, funding and other resource issues appropriate to key stakeholders
(Ring 1998).
Figure 1. Ellipse Graphic (Ring 1998). © 1998 IEEE. Reprinted, with permission, from Jack Ring, Engineering Value-Seeking Systems,
IEEE-SMC. Conference Proceedings. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
The views in Figure 1 apply the idea of Systemic Intervention to the resolution of problem situations in which one
or more engineered system solutions might be required. For each turn of the cycle, an agreement is made between
stakeholders and developers that an Engineered System to solve problem X with effectiveness Y in agreed
conditions Z has a chance of delivering value A for which they are willing to invest cost B and other resources C.
It is in the nature of wicked problems that this proposition cannot be a certainty. life cycle approaches to understand
and manage the shared risk of tackling such problems are discussed in Life Cycle Models. The idea of Systemic
Intervention comes from soft systems thinking (see Systems Approaches).
For each of the engineered system problems, the solutions agreed above must be developed such that they are
effective in terms of cost, performance and other properties relevant to the problem domain. A developer must
consider not only what to do, but when and how much to do to provide real value (Senge 1990). In systems
engineering (SE) and management practices, this leads to the two key concepts (INCOSE 2011):
• Life Cycles: Stakeholder value and problem resolution described as a set of life cycle stages over which problems
can be explored and resolved, and resources can be managed.
• Life Cycle Processes: Systems of activities focused on creation and sharing of knowledge associated with the
systems approach, that can be employed to promote a holistic approach over a life cycle.
Life cycle management provides the framework in which to take a systems approach to all aspects of an engineered
system context, which includes not only the system product or service but also the systems to create, deploy and
support it (Martin 2004). The following sections consider how the systems approach should be applied to an
identified problem statement, within the context of the overall value cycle discussed above.
Application Principles
Concurrency
Within any application of the systems approach, the activities of problem identification, solution synthesis and
selection, solution implementation and proving, and deployment, sustainment, and use should be applied
concurrently, reflecting their interrelationships and dependencies.
The system value cycle (Ring 1998) can be taken as a generic model of the life of an engineered system within a
problem resolution cycle driven by stakeholder value. For practical reasons, it is necessary to break this life down
into a set of finite stages to allow activities to be organized. We can express the value cycle as six groups of
questions to cycle around value, problem, and solution questions that are related to the systems approach:
1. What values do stakeholders want/need?
2. What system outcomes could improve this value?
3. What system can provide these outcomes?
4. How do we create such a system?
5. How do we deploy and use the system to achieve the outcomes?
6. Do these outcomes provide the expected improvement in value?
The above questions focus on each iteration of the systems approach to deliver stakeholder goals within an enterprise
context. Activities 1 and 6 are part of the business cycles of providing stakeholder value within an enterprise,
whereas activities 2 through 5 can be mapped directly to product, service, and enterprise engineering life cycles. A
distinction is made here between the normal business of an enterprise and the longer-term strategic activities of
Enterprise Systems Engineering.
The following diagram illustrates the concurrent nature of the activities of a systems approach over time.
Figure 2. Activities of the Systems Approach Applied within a System Life Cycle. (SEBoK Original)
The lines on Figure 2 represent activity in each of the activity areas over a simple (not to scale) life cycle based on
the questions above. Activities may have a primary focus in certain stages but need to span the whole of life to
ensure a holistic approach. For example, problem identification has a large input during the Problem Understanding
stage, but problems are refined, reviewed, and reassessed over the rest of the life cycle. Similarly, Implement and
Proving activities are conducted during the transition from Create to Use. This is only possible if proving issues,
strategies, and risks are considered in earlier stages. This diagram is a schematic representation of these activity
mappings, sometimes called a hump diagram (Kruchten 2003).
For the generic systems approach, the following fundamental life cycle principles apply:
• A life cycle has groups of stages which cover understanding stakeholder value; exploration of a problem situation
(see System Definition); creation of a system solution (see System Realization); and System Deployment and
Use.
• Life cycle processes define a system of engineering and management activities based on the detailed information
needed to ensure a systems approach across a life cycle (e.g., requirements, architecture, verification, and
validation).
• Activities in any of the processes may be employed in all of the stages to allow for appropriate concurrency.
• The sequence and control of the life cycle stages and concurrent process activities must be tailored to the problem
situation and commercial environment (Lawson 2010), thus leading to the selection of an appropriate life cycle
model.
• Appropriate management activities must be included in the life cycle to ensure consideration of time, cost, and
resource drivers.
• In focusing on the creation of a specific system-of-interest (SoI) to provide solutions within the cycle, it is
important to recognize the need to employ the right balance between reductionism and holism by considering the
appropriate system context.
The ways in which this idea of concurrent process activity across a life cycle has been implemented in SE are
discussed in Systems Engineering and Management.
Iteration
The systems approach can be applied in an iterative way to move towards an acceptable solution to a problem
situation within a larger cycle of stakeholder value.
The systems approach can be applied to multiple systems within an engineered system context, as discussed below.
At each level, the approach may be applied iteratively to cycle between what is needed and versions of the solutions
within a life cycle model.
Hitchins (2009) defines two principles related to iterations:
• Adaptive Optimizing: Continual redesign addresses the problem space, detecting and addressing changes in
situation, operational environment, other interacting systems, and other factors; it continually conceives, designs,
and implements or reconfigures the whole solution system to perform with optimal effectiveness in the
contemporary operational environment.
• Progressive Entropy Reduction: Continual performance and capability improvement of systems in operation
may be undertaken by customer or user organizations with or without support from industry, as they seek to “get
the best” out of their systems in demanding situations. In terms of knowledge or information, this process involves
progressively reducing entropy, going from a condition of high entropy (that is, disorder) at the outset to low
entropy (order) at the finish.
In general, these two cycles of iterations can be realized from combinations of three life cycle types (Adcock 2005):
• Sequential: With iteration between the stages to solve detailed issues as they arise, a single application of the
systems approach is sufficient.
• Incremental: Successive versions of the sequential approach are necessary for a solution concept. Each increment
adds functionality or effectiveness to the growing solution over time.
• Evolutionary: A series of applications of the sequential approach for alternative solutions intended to both provide
stakeholder value and increase problem understanding. Each evolutionary cycle provides an opportunity to
examine how the solution is used so the lessons learned can be incorporated in the next iteration.
These aspects of the systems approach form the basis for life cycle models in Life Cycle Models.
Recursion
The stakeholder value, problem resolution, and system creation aspects of the system value cycle may each require
the use of a focused systems approach. These might be soft systems to prove a better understanding of a situation,
product systems and/or service systems solutions to operational needs, enabling systems to support an aspect of the
product or service life cycle, or enabling systems used directly by the enterprise system.
Each of these systems may be identified as a system-of-interest (SoI) and require the application of the systems
approach. This application may be sequential (the start of one system approach dependent on the completion of
another) or parallel (independent approaches which may or may not overlap in time), but will often be recursive in
nature.
Recursion is a technique borrowed from computer science. In computer science, recursion occurs when a function
calls itself repeatedly to logically simplify an algorithm. In a recursive application applied to systems, the systems
approach for one system-of-interest is nested inside another. Examples include cases where:
• trades made at one level of the system require trades to be made for system elements;
• the analysis of a system requires analysis of a system element;
• the synthesis of a solution system requires one or more sub-system elements; and
• the verification of a product system requires verification of system elements.
In each case, the “outer” system approach may continue in parallel with the “inner” to some extent but depends on
key outcomes for its own progress.
As with all recursive processes, at some stage the application of the approach must reach a level at which it can be
completed successfully. This then "rolls up" to allow higher levels to move forward and eventually complete all
nested applications successfully.
The INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE 2011) describes a recursive application of SE to levels of
system element with each application representing a system project. Martin (1997) describes the recursive
application of SE within a product system hierarchy until a component level is reached, at which point procurement
of design and build processes can be used to create solution elements.
The principle of recursive application and how it relates to life cycle models is described in Life Cycle Models. This
topic is part of the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems knowledge area (KA). It summarizes various
aspects of stakeholder responsibility for acquisition and ownership during the system life cycle processes covered by
such sources as the International Council on Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE 2012). Any of the activities
described below may also need to be considered concurrently with other activities in the systems approach at a
particular point in the life of a system-of-interest (SoI).
engineering (SE).
Stakeholder Responsibilities
The general principles of life cycle application discussed above apply as necessary to each application of SE. The
following sections clarify the different kinds of stakeholder and the roles they take for the different system contexts
discussed in the SEBoK.
Products, Services, and Enterprises

Most often, the terms "product" and "service" describe the effects that are exchanged in a customer and supplier
agreement. This may be a commercial agreement, one funded publicly by a charity, or provided by a government
agency. The difference between a product and a service is that a product is an artifact acquired to achieve an
outcome while a service is an outcome supplied directly to a user.
The terms “customer” and “user” are often used interchangeably in engineering and management disciplines. The
INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE 2012) makes the following specific distinctions among the
stakeholders associated with a system:
• The acquirer is the stakeholder that acquires or procures a product or service from a supplier.
• The supplier is an organization or individual that enters into an agreement with the acquirer to supply a product or
service.
• The operator is an individual or organization that uses knowledge, skills and procedures to perform the functions
of the system to provide the product or service.
• The user or customer is the individual or group that benefit from the operation of the system.
These terms define the roles stakeholders take; however, they may not always lie within these distinct entities (e.g.
the acquirer may also be the user). This also applies to service systems, as some of the entities may also overlap in
roles. Parnell et al. (2011) offer an alternative list of stakeholders that include decision authority, client, owner, user,
consumer, and interconnected.
Product systems consist of hardware, software, and humans, and they have traditionally been the focus of SE efforts.
These systems are delivered to the acquirer and operated to accomplish the goals that led to the requirements for the
system. These requirements were derived from the need to provide products and services to one or more users as part
of an enterprise.
The delivery (supplying) of a service is indicative of the direct delivery of an outcome, which is often related to the
delivery of products (e.g., a maintenance, training, or cleaning service). This is not the same as the delivery of a
service system (see the discussion below).
In traditional SE, the term “service” or “service system” refers to the wider system context that describes the
acquirer's need to deliver user value. In this case, the service system is a fixed system definition that dictates the
manner in which the acquiring enterprise will utilize the products to enable the delivery of services to users. Product
systems are designed to be integrated and operated as appropriate to enable this service to be maintained or improved
as required. In this view, a service system is static and contains dedicated products, people, and resources; that is,
hierarchies of products are engineered to provide acquirers with the ability to offer predefined services to users or
customers.
More recently, the term "service systems" has been used to describe a system that is engineered in a manner that
allows enterprises to offer services directly to users, bypassing the need to hold all of the necessary products and
services within the enterprise itself. This requires the expansion of the definition of a “supplier” as follows:
• A product supplier is an organization or individual that enters into an agreement with an acquirer to supply a
product or related product support services.
• A service system supplier is an organization or individual that enters into an agreement with an acquirer to
supply a service system.
• A service supplier is an organization or individual that enters into an agreement with a user to supply a service.
These service systems tend to be configured dynamically to deal with problems that traditional static services find
challenging to address. This view of a service system employs "late binding" with product systems that are not
owned by the enterprise but are used to enable the service to be offered as closely to given time demands as possible.
This is the definition of a service system used in the Service Systems Engineering topic in Part 4, Applications of
Systems Engineering.
Stakeholder Needs
One of the most critical stakeholder responsibilities is to identify the needs and requirements for the system that
provides the products or services (INCOSE 2012). These needs and requirements are expressed in agreements
between acquirers and suppliers.
There are other stakeholders who shape system requirements based on their needs, but who are not necessarily
acquirers or suppliers. The stakeholders and the requirements engineers share the responsibility to identify their
needs during the requirements process.
Acquirer/Supplier Agreements
Lawson (2010) provides a perspective on what it means to own systems, trade in system products and services, and
the implications of supply chains in respect to the value added and ownership of the systems, its products and
services. INCOSE (2012) defines two life cycle processes related to acquisition and supply. The acquisition process
includes activities to identify, select, and reach commercial agreements with a product or service supplier.
In many larger organizations, there is a tradition of system ownership vested in individuals or, in some cases,
enterprise entities (groups or teams). Ownership implies the authority and responsibility to create, manage, and
dispose of a system-of-interest (SoI), as well as sometimes to operate the SoI.
Product Acquire/Supply
In some industries, a supplier works directly with an acquirer to help understand the acquirer’s needs and then
engineer one or more products to satisfy those needs. In certain cases, a single supplier will provide the complete
worthy product system. In other cases, a supply chain will be formed to deliver product systems with a system
integrator to ensure they fit together and integrate into the wider context. This is a theoretical view of product
systems engineering in which the context is fixed and the product is designed to fit into it. A good systems engineer
may suggest changes to the enterprise as a better way to solve the problem and then modify the product system’s
requirements accordingly. However, at some point, an agreed context will be set and a product system developed to
work within it.
For many commercial products, such as mobile phones, a supplier creates a representative user profile to generate
the requirement and then markets the product to real users once it is realized. In these cases, the other elements of the
systems approach are performed by the acquirer/user and may not follow formal SE processes. It is important that a
product supplier takes this into account when considering the best manner in which to engineer a system, as
additional help or support services may need to be offered with the purchased product. The idea of a supplier
offering support services for users with a type of product purchased elsewhere (e.g., an auto-mechanic servicing
different makes of cars) begins to overlap with the service systems context, as discussed in the next topic.
For an institutionalized infrastructure in which SoIs are entirely owned by an enterprise or parties thereof, the entire
responsibility of life cycle management, including operation, is often vested with the system owners. These systems
belong to the system asset portfolio of an enterprise or multiple enterprises and provide the system resources,
including the planned systems that are developed during life cycle management.
Service Acquire/Supply
Organizations providing service systems need not own the individual products and services that they deliver to their
users and customers. With this viewpoint, the supplied service system includes the means to identify and gain access
to appropriate products or services when needed. The service systems would then be the bundle of products and
services assembled for the user; for example, assembling software applications and service agreements for a mobile
phone already owned by a user. The enterprises providing service systems may, in turn, offer infrastructure services
to a wide range of different technologies or application domains. This can mean that the transition, operation,
maintenance and disposal activities associated with system ownership may not be embedded in the acquiring service
system enterprise, and will therefore need to be treated as separate system services. More detail can be found in
Product Systems Engineering, Service Systems Engineering, and Enterprise Systems Engineering, in Part 4,
Applications of Systems Engineering in the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK).
The service systems engineer helps the service supplier create and sustain the service system that can be used to
discover, integrate, and use specific versions of generic products or services when needed. The realization of service
systems requires the ability to make use of product systems; however, these product systems are developed and
owned outside of the service system. The service system must be able to gain access to a product or service when
needed, as well as to interface with it effectively. The use of open interface standards, such as standard power
supplies, interface connections (e.g., Universal Serial Bus (USB)), or file formats (e.g., Portable Document Format
(PDF)) can help make this easier.
Enterprise Evolution
A useful distinction between product system design and enterprise system design is that “enterprise design does not
occur at a single point in time like the design of most systems. Instead, enterprises evolve over time and are
constantly changing, or are constantly being designed” (Giachetti 2010, xiii).
The enterprise developer may also aim to optimize backstage processes (the internal operations) of an organization
or an institution by exploiting advances in technology, particularly information technology (IT) and associated
processes. In these cases, the engineered systems are considered to be enterprise systems.
Enterprise systems may offer products (goods) and/or services. From an enterprise engineering viewpoint, an
enterprise concurrent with its product SE must not only look at the development and delivery of the products but also
look at the alignment and optimization of the product delivery within the enterprise objectives. Similarly, in service
SE, the main focus is on an intangible value delivery to the end-customer (externally focused: front stage), in which
internal and external processes must be synchronized. However, with the rapid advances in information and
communications technologies (ICT), in many cases the boundaries between internal and external processes are quite
blurred. Current SE research is extending product methods, processes, and tools into the enterprise transformation
and service innovation fields to exploit advances in business process methodologies and technologies.
Enterprise SE must not only do the engineering of the enterprise itself but may also be involved in the engineering of
the service systems and product systems that are necessary for the enterprise to achieve its goals.
Activity Mapping
This topic belongs to the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems KA from Part 2, Foundations of
Systems Engineering. Other topics about activities, from the same KA, relate to high level technical processes
defined in KAs in Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management, in the following way:
• Identifying and Understanding Problems and Opportunities topic relates to the Concept Definition KA.
• Synthesizing Possible Solutions and Analysis and Selection between Alternative Solutions topics relate to the
System Definition KA.
• Implementing and Proving a Solution topic relates to the System Realization KA.
• Deploying, Using, and Sustaining Systems to Solve Problems topic relates to the Product and Service Life
Management KA.
Part 3 discusses the principles defined in each of the systems approach activities, and how they help shape the
technical processes to which they are mapped.
References
Works Cited
Adcock, R.D. 2005. "Tailoring systems engineering lifecycle processes to meet the challenges of project and
programme". INCOSE International Symposium 2005. Volume 15. Issue 1.
Boehm, B. and A. Jain. 2006. "A value-based theory of systems engineering." Presented at the 16th Annual INCOSE
Systems Engineering Conference, Orlando, FL,USA.
on Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.1.
Press.
Kruchten, P. 2003. The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 3rd edition. Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.
Martin J.N. 1997. Systems Engineering Guidebook. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Martin, J. 2004. "The Seven Samurai of Systems Engineering: Dealing with the Complexity of 7 Interrelated
Systems." INCOSE 2004 - 14th Annual International Symposium Proceedings.
Parnell, G.S., P.J. Driscoll, and D.L Henderson (eds). 2011. Decision Making for Systems Engineering and
Management, 2nd ed. Wiley Series in Systems Engineering. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley & Sons Inc.
Ring, J. 1998. "A value seeking approach to the engineering of systems." Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. p. 2704-2708.
Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA:
Doubleday/Currency.
Primary References
Hall.
Carlock, P.G. and R.E. Fenton. 2001. "System of Systems (SoS) enterprise systems engineering for
information-intensive organizations." Systems Engineering, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 242–261.
Rouse, W.B. 2005. "Enterprises as systems: Essential challenges and approaches to transformation." Systems

255
Part 3: Systems Engineering and

Management
Systems Engineering and Management

Lead Authors: Jeffrey Carter and Caitlyn Singam
Systems Engineering and Management (SE&M) articles provide system lifecycle best practices for defining and
executing interdisciplinary processes to ensure that customer needs are satisfied with a technical performance,
schedule, and cost compliant solution. The figure below depicts the context of SE&M processes and practices
guidance within the SEBoK.
Figure 1: SEBoK Part 3 SE&M Context [SEBoK Original] for more detail see Structure of the
SEBoK
The SE&M materials are currently being updated to provide system design practitioners with Digital Engineering
[DE] and Model-Based Systems Engineering [MBSE] implementation guidance employing the Systems Modeling
Language (SysML).
• DE conducts Agile system-software development based on industry open standards by employing MBSE.
• MBSE develops and integrates SysML design models with simulation capabilities for cross-domain collaboration
across the lifecycle.
• SysML is an industry standard graphical notation with formal semantics (meaning) to define system requirements,
constraints, allocations, behavior and structure characteristics
SE&M Knowledge Areas

The SE&M articles are organized into the following Knowledge Areas [KAs].
• Systems Engineering STEM Overview
• Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)
• Systems Lifecycle Approaches
• System Lifecycle Models
• Systems Engineering Management
• Business and Mission Analysis
• Stakeholder Needs Definition
• System Architecture Definition
• Detailed Design Definition
• System Analysis
• System Transition
• System Operation
• System Maintenance
• System Specialty Engineering
• Logistics
• Service Life Management
• Systems Engineering Standards
The SE&M articles provide exemplar processes and practices which are tailorable for an engineering organization to
satisfy strategic business goals and individual project objectives including:
• How engineering conducts system development
• The purpose of each engineering artifact generated
• How systems are integrated, and requirements verified
• How new product designs are transitioned to production operations
• How the resulting system is employed and sustained to satisfy customer needs
Systems Engineering & Management Overview

The role of Systems Engineering [SE] is to define system requirements, constraints, allocations, behavior and
structure characteristics to satisfy customer needs. The system is defined in terms of hierarchical structural elements
and their behavior interactions. The interactions include the exchange of data, energy, force, or mass which modifies
the state of the cooperating elements resulting in emergent, discrete, or continuous behaviors. The behaviors are at
sequential levels of aggregation [bottoms-up] or decomposition [top-down] to satisfy requirements, constraints, and
allocations. SE collaborates within an integrated product team with electrical, mechanical, software, and specialty
engineering to define the subsystem and component detailed design implementations to develop a holistic technical
solution.
SE has traditionally applied intuitive domain-specific practices emphasizing processes and procedures with good
writing skills to manually organize information in a disparate collection of documents including textual system
requirement specifications, analysis reports, system design descriptions, and interface specifications. Traditional SE
is often referred to as a document-centric approach. System design practitioners have cultivated model-based
techniques since the late 1990s to facilitate communications, manage design complexity, improve product quality,
enhance knowledge capture and reuse. MBSE is defined as the formalized application of graphical modeling with
precise semantic definitions for operational analysis, requirements definition, system design development and
verification activities beginning in the conceptual phase and continuing throughout later lifecycle phases [INCOSE,
2015]. MBSE conducts system development employing an engineering ecosystem consisting of commercially
available tools to create a system design model with SysML compliant semantics that represents the system
requirements, constraints, allocations, behavior and structure characteristics. The system design model provides an
Authoritative Source of Truth [ASoT] for the project technical baseline with integrated end-to-end simulation
capabilities to evaluate system key performance parameters in digital computing environments. MBSE includes the
creation, development, and utilization of digital design models with domain product-specific analyses including
aerospace, automobile, consumer, defense, and software.
The recent adoption of DE practices [Roper, 2020] broadens the MBSE transformation based on the following
principals:
• Agile System and Software Development to prioritize capability development and respond to evolving threats,
environments, and challenges.
• Modular Open System Approach [MOSA] to develop product-lines based on industry standards that can adapt to
evolving customer needs with new, modified, and existing [reuse] capabilities.
• Digital Engineering [DE] to develop, integrate, and employ MBSE design models with simulation capabilities to
realistically emulate systems in digital computing environments for cross-domain collaboration across the system
design development, verification, production, and sustainment lifecycle.
The system design model includes functional, logical, and physical system design representations with capabilities
that are integrated with electrical, mechanical, software, and specialty design disciplines for system functional and
performance assessments. Design model scripts can export functional (SSS, B1, B2, B5) specifications, interface
(IRS, ICD, IDD) specifications, design & requirements traceability reports, and design descriptions (SADD, SSDD,
SWDD). The integrated simulations provide a digital twin with digital threads of system key performance
parameters to evaluate design alternatives in digital computing environments to discover and resolve design defects
before the expense of producing physical prototypes.
• Digital threads are analytical frameworks providing end-to-end system simulations to evaluate logical operations
and key performance parameters in digital computing environments by exchanging information between different
engineering modeling tools across the lifecycle. Evaluation of the digital thread simulations ensure that
requirements, interactions, and dependencies are commonly understood across engineering disciplines. Design
changes are automatically reflected in all design model usages to assess compliance, with any issue(s) flagged for
corrective action.
• Digital twins are authoritative representations of physical systems including the digital thread end-to-end
connections with all the data, models, and infrastructure needed to define and optimize a system’s lifecycle
digitally. Digital twins enable project team collaboration, system simulation functional performance assessments,
design change impact evaluations, and product-line management reuse libraries
MBSE enhances the ability to capture, analyze, share, and manage authoritative information associated with the
complete specification of a product compared to traditional document-based approaches. MBSE provides the
capability to consolidate information in an accessible, centralized source, enabling partial or complete automation of
many systems engineering processes, and facilitating interactive representation of system components and behaviors.
The legacy SE&M materials are all impacted by the adoption of MBSE practices, and the SEBoK is updating its
materials accordingly to reflect best practices and principles in an integrated model-based engineering environment.
The updated materials to specify system behavior and structure characteristics with traceability to the associated
requirements are organized in accordance with the ISO/IEC/IEEE-15288:2015 Systems Lifecycle Processes Standard
shown in the figure below.
Figure 2. ISO/IEC/IEEE-15288:2015 Standard Outline (SEBoK Original)
Figure 3 depicts a generic example of the model-based system design process. The approach is consistent with
INCOSE’s Systems Engineering Handbook guidance with the addition of a system design model repository to
manage the project technical baseline. The MBSE design process is independent of any specific design methodology
(e.g., structured analysis, object orientated, etc.) employed. Each design model element has a single definition with
multiple instantiations on various diagrams depicting system structure and behavior characteristics including
traceability to the associated requirements. The model-based design process may be tailored for projects dependent
on the domain-area, development, and lifecycle approaches.
Figure 3: Model-Based System Engineering Process. (SEBoK Original)
Product domain-area system design knowledge and expertise are still mandatory with the implementation of an
MBSE approach, which employs integrated modeling tools instead of legacy drawing tools (e.g., Powerpoint, Visio),
textual-based specifications (e.g., DOORS), and engineering analysis reports and design descriptions (Word).
The SE&M model-based system design guidance enables a multi-disciplinary team to manage a project’s technical
baseline within a single, consistent, and unambiguous system design model. The integrated MBSE design model
contains system functional and logical representations with the physical detailed design implementation to specify,
analyze, design, and verify that requirements are satisfied. The guidance defines conventions for developing design
models to specify system behavior and structure characteristics with traceability to the project’s requirements. The
design models provide a digital authoritative source of truth information repository for a project’s technical baseline.
Model simulation with test cases facilitate initial design verification in digital computing environments to discover
and resolve design defects before incurring the expense of producing physical prototypes.
MBSE practices transform SE from the current document-based approach to employing computer aided design tools
comparable to the evolution of the EE, ME, SW, and SP disciplines years ago. The value-added benefit is
employment of integrated modeling tools instead of traditional static drawing tools [e.g., PowerPoint, Visio] for
product development, integration, and verification across the system lifecycle. The SE&M model-based system
design guidance provides MBSE best practices for implementing a digital engineering strategy to develop system
design models for specifying and simulating behavior / structure characteristics with traceability to the associated
requirements based on the following principles:
1. Develop, integrate, and employ digital system design models for cross-domain collaboration throughout the
product lifecycle [i.e., engineering development, production, and sustainment].
2. Manage product-lines based on industry open standards with libraries of customized variants adapted for
customers with new, modified, and existing [reuse] system design capabilities.
3. Maintain a digital authoritative source of truth information repository for each product variant’s approved
technical baseline throughout the product lifecycle to facilitate collaboration and inform decision making.
4. Conduct model simulations with verification test cases to evaluate system behavior and structure in digital
computing environments to discover design defects before the expense of producing physical prototypes.
5. Define digital threads of technical key performance parameters and synchronize information across SE, EE, ME,
SW, and SP design modeling tools to ensure system requirements, interactions, and dependencies are commonly
understood. Design changes are automatically reflected in all model usages across engineering discipline tools
and assessed for compliance, with any issue(s) flagged for corrective action.
6. Utilize “Agile” development processes to provide consistent methods for developing system design models and
identifying digital threads for data synchronization across engineering disciplines within the integrated
model-based engineering environment.
The SE&M model-based system design approach has a theoretical scientific foundation based on the system
phenomenon defined by Hamilton’s Principle: a system is composed of hierarchical elements which interact by
exchanging data, energy, force, or mass to modify the state of cooperating elements resulting in emergent, discrete,
or continuous behaviors at progressive levels of aggregation or decomposition as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: The System Phenomenon – Hamilton’s Principle. (SEBoK Original)
References
Citations
OMG Systems Modeling Language [SysML®] Standard – v1.6, November 2019
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook - A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, version
4.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0.
Roper, W. 2020. ‘’There is No Spoon: The New Digital Acquisition Reality.’’ Arlington, VA: US Space Force, US
Air Force, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. 07 October 2020. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https:/ /
software. af. mil/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2020/ 10/
There-Is-No-Spoon-Digital-Acquisition-7-Oct-2020-digital-version.pdf.
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015. Systems and Software Engineering -- System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commissions / Institute
for Electrical and Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
Schindel, B. 2016. “Got Phenomena? Science-Based Disciplines for Emerging Systems Challenges,” International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2016 INCOSE International Symposium Proceedings, Edinburgh,
Scotland.
Schindel, B. 2018. “The System Phenomenon, Hamilton’s Principle, and Noether’s Theorem as a Basis for System
Science,” International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2018 INCOSE International Workshop
Proceedings, Torrance, California.
Primary References
International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commissions. ISO/IEC/IEEE
15288:2015.
U.S. DOD. 2018. ‘’Digital Engineering Strategy.’’ Arlington, VA: Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Systems Engineering. June 2018.
Wasson, C. 2006. System Analysis, Design, and Development – Concepts, Principles, and Practices.’’ Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Madni, A. M. and Sievers, M. 2018. Model‐based systems engineering: Motivation, current status, and research
opportunities, Systems Engineering. 2018; 21: 172– 190. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21438
Estefan, J. 2008. A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies, rev, B. Seattle, WA:
International Council on Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02. Accessed April 13, 2015. Available at
http://www.omgsysml.org/MBSE_Methodology_Survey_RevB.pdf.

Systems Engineering STEM Overview

Lead Author: Bill Schindel
Engineering disciplines (ME, EE, CE, ChE) sometimes argue their fields have “real physical phenomena”, “hard
science” based laws, and first principles, claiming Systems Engineering lacks equivalent phenomenological
foundation. Here we argue the opposite, and how replanting systems engineering in MBSE/PBSE supports
emergence of new hard sciences and phenomena-based domain disciplines with deep historical roots. Supporting this
perspective is the System Phenomenon, wellspring of engineering opportunities and challenges. Governed by
Hamilton’s Principle, it is a traditional path for derivation of equations of motion or physical laws of so-called
“fundamental” physical phenomena of mechanics, electromagnetics, chemistry, and thermodynamics.
We argue that laws and phenomena of traditional disciplines are less fundamental than the System Phenomenon
from which they spring—an historical fact that was well-known and equally remarkable 200 years earlier to the
pioneers of mathematical physics. This is a practical reminder of emerging higher disciplines, with their own
phenomena, first principles, and physical laws. Contemporary examples include ground vehicles, aircraft, marine
vessels, and biochemical networks; ahead are health care, distribution networks, market systems, ecologies, and the
IoT.
Introduction
As a formal body of knowledge and practice, Systems Engineering is much younger than the more established
engineering disciplines, such as Civil, Mechanical, Chemical, and Electrical Engineering. Comparing their
underlying scientific foundations to some equivalent in Systems Engineering sometimes arises as a dispute,
concerning whose profession is “real” engineering based on (or at least later explained by) hard science, with tangible
physical phenomena, and accompanied by physical laws and first principles. This paper summarizes the argument
for a different perspective altogether (Figure 1), and the reader exploring this paper is warned to avoid the trap of the
seemingly familiar in parsing the message. A more complete discussion is provided in (Schindel 2016) and (Schindel
2019).
Figure 1: Two Different Views of Systems Engineering. (SEBoK Original)
Beyond that argument, this paper addresses a more pragmatic goal—the means of identifying and representing the
tangible physical phenomena that emerge in new system domains, along with their respective physical laws and first
principles. This is of more than philosophical or professional significance. Challenged by numerous issues in
emerging systems, society has an interest in organizing successful approaches to the scientific understanding of laws
and first principles about, and engineering harnessing of, the related phenomena. Individuals entering or navigating
the technical professions likewise have personal interests in this evolving roadmap.
While recognizing the formidable works of systems theorists in these still early days of systems engineering (Ashby
1956; Bertalanffy 1969; Braha et al 2006; Cowan et al 1994; Holland 1998; Prigogine 1980; Warfield 2006;
Wymore 1967), this paper focuses on even earlier contributions of science and mathematics to the flowering of
engineering’s impact over the last three centuries. We will extract the “System Phenomenon” at the center of that
foundation and consider its impacts and implications for systems engineering practice. This perspective helps us
understand the phase change that Systems Engineering is going through, as model-based representations enable the
framework that has already had profound impact in the traditional science/engineering paired disciplines.
Phase Change Evidence: Efficacy of Hard Science, Phenomena-Based, STEM

Disciplines
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics [STEM] —300 Years of Impact

Our pragmatic argument is based on assessing the impact of the physical sciences and mathematics on engineering
by their joint efficacy in improving the human condition. In a matter of 300 years (from around Newton), the
accelerating emergence of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) has lifted the possibility,
quality, and length of life for a large portion of humanity, while dramatically increasing human future potential
(Mokyr 2009; Morris 2012; Rogers 2003). By the close of the Twentieth Century, the learning and impacts of STEM
along with other factors (e.g., market capitalism as a driver of prosperity, as in (Friedman 1980)) were increasingly
recognized as critical to individual and collective human prosperity. During that same period, the human-populated
world has become vastly more interconnected, complex, and challenging. New opportunities and threats have
emerged, in part out of less positive impacts of human applications of STEM. Understanding and harnessing the
possibilities have become even more important than before, from the smallest known constituents of matter and life
to the largest scale complexities of networks, economies, the natural environment, and living systems
"Phase Changes": Emergence of Science and Engineering as Phenomena-Based Disciplines

Over those three centuries, the “hard sciences”, along with the engineering disciplines and technologies based on
those sciences, are credited with much of this amazing societal progress, as well as some related challenges (Mokyr
2009; Morris 2012; Rogers 2003). Our point here is the enormous impact of these “traditional” (at least, over 300
short years) disciplines, as their foundations emerged in understanding of physical phenomena and related predictive
and explanatory models.
How can the foundational roots of Systems Engineering be compared to engineering disciplines already seen as
based on the “hard sciences”? The traditional engineering disciplines (ME, EE, ChE, CE) have their technical bases
and quantitative foundations in what emerged as physical sciences of what came to be understood as physical
phenomena.
It wasn’t always this way, as seen from the shift that began to occur just three centuries ago. It is informative to
remember the “phase changes” that occurred in what are now considered the traditional disciplines, by recalling the
history of physics before Newton, chemistry before Lavoisier and Mendeleev, and electrical science before Faraday,
Hertz, and Maxwell, versus what followed for each. (Cardwell 1971; Forbes et al 2014; Pauling 1960; Servos 1996;
Westfall 1980) All of these domains had earlier, less effective, bodies of thought, generated by those attempting to
answer questions and, in some cases, provide practical benefits. Instead of dismissing alchemy, astrology,
pre-Copernican cosmology, and their counterparts, we can instead see them as grappling with phenomena without
the benefit of sufficiently powerful physical-mathematical representation and the verification mechanisms of
experiment and refutation to test against reality what we would now call models.
Systems Engineering is Still Young

Contemporary specialists in individual engineering disciplines (e.g., ME, EE, CE, ChE) sometimes argue that their
fields are based on “real physical phenomena”, founded on physical laws based in the “hard sciences” and first
principles. One sometimes hears claims that Systems Engineering lacks the equivalent phenomena-based theoretical
foundations. In that telling, Systems Engineering is instead critically portrayed as emphasizing (1) process and
procedure, (2) critical and systems thinking and good writing skills, and (3) organizing and accounting for
information and risk in particular ways—valuable, but not as based on an underlying “hard science”.
That view is understandable, given the initial trajectory of the first 50 years of Systems Engineering. (Adcock 2015;
Checkland 1981; Walden et al 2015) “Science” or “phenomenon” of generalized systems have for the most part been
described on an intuitive or qualitative basis, with limited reference to a “physical phenomenon” that might be called
the basis of systems science and systems engineering. Some systemic phenomena (e.g., requisite variety, emergence
of structure, complexity, chaos theory, etc.) have received attention, but it is challenging to argue that these insights
have had as great an impact (yet) on the human condition and engineering practice as the broader STEM illustrations
cited above for the most recent three centuries of physical sciences and mathematics. However, INCOSE’s own
stated vision (Friedenthal et al 2014) calls upon systems engineering for such a result.
Respectful of the contributions of those early thinkers in systems engineering, we also note that their contributions
can in some cases be expressed as manifestations of the modeled System Phenomenon described below, advancing
the scientific foundations of systems engineering.
MBSE, PBSE: Enabling a Phase Change in Systems Engineering

In the case of systems engineering, a key part of the story is that the role that quantitative system models have
played, or not played, during its initial history. Most recently, the broader INCOSE-encouraged role for model-based
methods offers to eventually accelerate the “phase change” that the successful earlier history of science, mathematics,
and other engineering disciplines suggest is now in progress.
Models are certainly not new to segments of engineering practice. However, we are representing an increasingly
fraction of our overall understanding of systems, from stakeholder trade space, to required functionality and
performance, to design, and to risk, using explicit and increasingly integrated system models. As in Newton’s day,
this also puts pressure on the approaches to model representations, in order that they effectively represent the key
ideas concerning the real things they are intended to describe. “Effective” meant these models described observable
phenomena, offered explanatory theories of cause, provided verifiable (or falsifiable) predictions, and increased
human understanding. In many cases, this understanding was harnessed by practicing engineers to improve human
life. The progress of physical sciences did not arise from models that only could describe single unique instances of
systems, but instead represented what came to be understood as more general patterns that recur across broad
families of systems. Likewise, there is an increasing effort in systems engineering to recognize that these models
must often describe patterns of similarity and parameterized variation. The increasing use of explicit model-based
patterns in these representations is a part of this phase change (INCOSE Patterns WG 2015; INCOSE MBSE
Initiative 2015). Pattern-Based Systems Engineering (PBSE) as an extension of Model-Based Systems Engineering
(MBSE) increases emphasis on representation.
This is a more significant change than just the emergence of standards for systems modeling languages and IT
toolsets, even though those are valuable steps. We need underlying model structures that are strong
enough--remember physics before the calculus of Newton & Leibniz. As a test of “strong enough”, we suggest the
ability to have the kinds of impact on humankind summarized in Section 2—beginning with clearer focus on what
phenomena are being represented.
Although this sounds challenging, it is not necessary for emerging systems models to “start from scratch” in their
search for new system phenomena, and further argue that what is already known from the earlier phase change of
Section 2 helps suggest what aspects of our systems models need to be strengthened during the phase change in
systems engineering. PBSE further reminds us of a practical lesson from the STEM revolution. Once validated
patterns emerge, we (mostly) need to learn and apply those patterns (laws, principles), not how to re-derive them
from earlier knowledge. Examples include the Periodic Table and the Gas Laws. While it may be controversial,
“learn the model, not modeling” is advice worth considering, in a time when modeling from scratch seems carry
more excitement.
The System Phenomenon

The perspective used in this paper defines a system as a collecting of interacting components, where interactions
involve the exchange of energy, force, mass, or information, through which one component impacts the state of
another component, and in which the state of a component impacts its behaviour in future interactions (Schindel
2011).
In this framework, all behaviour is expressed through physical interactions (Figure 2). This perspective emphasizes
physical interactions as the context in which all the laws of the hard sciences are expressed. (Schindel 2013)
Figure 2: The System Perspective. (SEBoK Original)
The traditional “Phenomena” of the hard sciences are all cases of the following System Phenomenon:
1. Each component has a specific behavior during a given interaction type, determined by the component’s state.
(See (4) below for the source of that component’s behavioral characteristics.)
2. The combined behaviors of the set of interacting components determine a combined system state space trajectory.
3. That trajectory is a collective property of the system components and interaction, and accordingly is not simply
the description of possible behaviors of the individual components. For the systems discussed in this paper, by
Hamilton’s Principle (Levi 2014; Sussman et al 2001; Hankins 2004), the emergent interaction-based behavior of
the larger system is a “stationary” trajectory X = X(t) of the action integral, based on the Lagrangian L of the
combined system:
1. The behavioural characteristics of each interacting component in (1) above are in turn determined by its internal
(“subsystem”) components, themselves interacting.
Reduced to simplest forms, the resulting equations of motion (or if not known or solvable, empirically observed
paths) provide “physical laws” (or recurring observable behaviors) subject to verification.
Instead of Systems Engineering lacking the kind of theoretical foundation that the “hard sciences” bring to other
engineering disciplines, we therefore assert that:
• It turns out that all those other engineering disciplines’ foundations are themselves dependent upon the System
Phenomenon, and emerge from it.
• The related underlying math and science of systems (dating to at least Hamilton) provides the theoretical basis
already used by all the hard sciences and their respective engineering disciplines.
• It is not Systems Engineering that lacks its own foundation—instead, it has been providing the foundation for the
other disciplines! (Refer to Figure 6.)
• This insight was well-known and remarkable to the sciences 200 years ago, and has continued to be remarked
upon by leading scientists for its surprising coverage ever since: “It [science] has as its highest principle and most
coveted aim the solution of the problem to condense all natural phenomena which have been observed and are
still to be observed into one simple principle, that allows the computation of past and more especially of future
processes from present ones. ...Amid the more or less general laws which mark the achievements of physical
science during the course of the last centuries, the principle of least action is perhaps that which, as regards form
and content, may claim to come nearest to that ideal final aim of theoretical research.” (Kline, 1981)
Historical Domain Example 1: Chemistry

Chemists, and Chemical Engineers, justifiably consider their disciplines to be based on the “hard phenomena” of
Chemistry (Pauling 1960; Servos 1996):
• This perspective emerged from the scientific discovery and verification of phenomena and laws of Chemistry.
• Prominent among these was the discovery of the individual Chemical Elements and their Chemical Properties,
organized by the discovered patterns of the Periodic Table.
• Emerging understanding of related phenomena and behaviors included Chemical Bonds, Chemical Reactions,
Reaction Rates, Chemical Energy, and Conservation of Mass and Energy.
• Upon that structure grew further understanding of Chemical Compounds and their Properties:
Figure 3: Chemical Interactions, Phenomena, Principles. (SEBoK Original
Even though these chemical phenomena and laws seemed very fundamental:
• All those chemical properties and behaviors are emergent consequences of interactions that occur between atoms’
orbiting electrons (or their quantum equivalents), along with limited properties (e.g., atomic weights) of the rest of
the atoms they orbit.
• These lower interactions give rise to visible higher-level Chemical behaviour patterns, their own higher-level
properties and relationships, expressing “hard science” laws of Chemistry.
This illustrates:
• The “fundamental phenomena” of Chemistry, along with the scientifically-discovered / verified “fundamental laws
/ first principles” are in fact . . .
• Higher level emergent system patterns and . . .
• Chemistry and Chemical Engineering study and apply those system patterns.
Historical Domain Example 2: The Gas Laws and Fluid Flow

Illustrated by Figure 4, the discovered and verified laws of gases and of compressible and incompressible fluid flow
by Boyle, Avogadro, Charles, Gay-Lussac, Bernoulli, and others are rightly viewed as fundamental to science and
engineering disciplines. (Cardwell 1971) However, all those fluid and gaseous properties and behaviors are emergent
consequences of interactions that occur between atoms or molecules, the containers they occupy, and their external
thermal environment. These lower-level interactions give rise to patterns that have their own higher-level properties
and relationships, expressed as “hard sciences” laws. So, the “fundamental phenomena” of gases, along with the
scientifically-discovered and verified “fundamental laws and first principles” are in fact higher level emergent system
patterns. And so, Mechanical Engineers, Thermodynamicists, and Aerospace Engineers can study and apply those
system patterns.
[[File: |thumb|center|750px|Figure 4: Gas, Fluid Interactions, Phenomena, Principles. (SEBoK Original)]]
Examples from More Recent History

The practical point of this paper is to emphasize the constant emergence of new scientific and engineering
disciplines, in domains arising from higher level system interactions. These include domains that have been
important to society, even though they arose later than the more fundamental domains from which they spring. The
discovery and exploitation of these higher-level phenomena, principles, and laws is important to future progress and
innovation, including enterprises, careers of individuals, and society. These more recent emergent domains, in which
formal system patterns are being recognized as describing higher-level phenomena and laws, are illustrated by
examples of Figure 8:
1. Ground Vehicles: As in the dynamical laws of vehicle stability that enable vehicular stability controls (Guiggiani
2014)
2. Aircraft: Including the dynamical laws at the aircraft level that enable advanced aircraft design for dynamic
performance and top-level flight controls (Pratt 2000)
3. Marine Vessels: Facilitating the design of more efficient hulls and special purpose craft, as well as bulk transports
(Perez et al 2007)
4. Biological Regulatory Networks: Advancing our understanding of immune reactions and other regulatory paths in
connection with pathologies as well as therapies (Davidson and Levine 2005).
For example, in the case of ground vehicles, dynamical laws of vehicle stability arise from the interactions,
modulated through control algorithms, of the distributed mass of the vehicle in motion with the driving surface,
transmitted through tractional forces of braking, acceleration, or steering, as further impacted by road surface and tire
conditions, along with other factors. It is the overall system interaction of all these domain elements that leads to
emergent vehicular laws of motion.
Students of complexity (Cowan et al 1994) will note that nonlinearity, the onset of chaos, and extreme
interdependencies are not reasons to avoid representing the interactions manifesting that behavior. Indeed, they
provide further reasons to understand those very interactions.
Figure 5: Ground and Marine Vehicles, Aircraft, Regulation in Organisms. (SEBoK Original)
Examples that call out for improved future efficacy in systems engineering include:
1. Utility and other distribution networks: Society depends upon rapidly evolving, often global, networks for
distribution of goods and services, in the form of materials, energy, communication, and information services.
What are the network-level phenomena, laws, and principles of these networks, bearing on their effectiveness and
resiliency? (Perez-Arriaaga et al 2013)
2. Market systems, economies, and human-imposed regulatory frameworks: These systems clearly have direct
impact on society and individuals. The “designed” systems of top-down regulation imposed upon them include
such prominent examples as regulation of banking, securities markets, development of medical devices and
compounds, and delivery of health care. What are the system-level phenomena, laws, and principles of these
systems, bearing on their effectiveness and resiliency? (Friedman 1980)
3. Living ecologies: The emergent habitats of living things include rain forests, coral reefs, the human microbiome,
and the biosphere as a whole. These demonstrate characteristics that include regulatory stability within limits,
along with pathologies. What are the system-level phenomena, laws, and principles of these systems? (MacArthur
& Wilson 2001)
4. Health care delivery: These systems, including a number of important challenges, are much in the public eye. The
very definition of effective health care is necessarily dynamic because of the evolving frontiers of medical
science. The means of effectively delivering care, financing its costs, and (Hippocratically) protecting patients
from harm are all subject of study as to system-level phenomena and principles. (Holdren et al 2014)
5. Product development, general innovation, and related agility: This system domain is the “home court” of INCOSE
and our systems engineering profession. While there is a large body of descriptions of the related systems, the
study of these systems as modelled technical systems is mostly new or in the future. One such project is the
INCOSE Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle Model Project. (Braha et al 2007; Schindel and Dove 2016;
Hoffman 2015)
Strengthening the Foundations of MBSE

Like mechanics pre-Newton, models of MBSE require an underlying framework to effectively describe the System
Phenomenon in domains of practice. MBSE requires a strong enough underlying Metamodel to support
phenomenon-based systems science. As discussed in (Schindel 2013), Interactions play a central role in such
frameworks, inspired by Hamilton and three hundred years of pioneers in the emergence of science and engineering.
Interactions are acknowledged by and can be modelled in some current system modelling frameworks, but typical
practice and underlying structures need related improvement. Figure 9 illustrates a related, Interaction-centric,
extract from the S*Metamodel (Schindel 2011).
Figure 6: Summary View of S*Metamodel. (SEBoK Original)
This is more than model semantics or ontology alone. It means recognizing that the models we pursue are models of
the real physical systems they are about, and not just models of information about business processes concerned with
those systems. While that might seem obvious to the physical scientist, a different perspective than that is embedded
in forty years of enterprise information system practice. In that history, the traditional (and relatively successful)
paradigm is construction of information models that describe information transactions or documents (e.g., purchase
of air travel tickets). Symptomatic of that paradigm, today we still encounter MBSE models and human
interpretations of them that include notions of databases, “calls”, “methods”, and other successful software notions
that are not the same as modeling physical systems.
Conclusions and Implications for Future Action

1. Like the other engineering disciplines, Systems Engineering can be viewed as founded on “real” physical
phenomena—the System Phenomenon—for which experimentally verified, mathematically modeled hard
science, laws, and first principles have existed for over 150 years, dating to Hamilton, or earlier, to Newton.
2. Systems Engineering not only has its own phenomenon, but the phenomena upon which the traditional
engineering disciplines (ME, CE, ChE, EE) are based can themselves all be seen to be derivable from the System
Phenomenon. It is SE that has the more fundamental foundation, while the other disciplines are special cases of
both the phenomena and mathematics.
3. The System Phenomenon supports the emergence of hard sciences, laws, and first principles for higher level
phenomena of critical importance to humankind.
4. Systems Engineering, along with its related scientific foundations, is a young and still emerging discipline. The
re-planting of Systems Engineering in a model-based framework is an important step toward strengthening the
discipline, but requires a stronger model framework for that to occur, and the System Phenomenon points the way
to a key part of that framework.
5. A practical implication for practicing systems engineers and their educators: All models of behavior should be
based on interactions. Nature offers no “naked” behavior outside interactions, but current practice and training
often seem to overlook this.
6. Systems research emphasis would benefit from more attention to specific emergent domains, each of which will
have their own phenomena, instead of over-emphasizing abstract generic systems. This is a well-described but
often overlooked observation, as noted in (Anderson 1972)
7. There are additional phenomena in this space. For a discussion of the Value Selection Phenomenon and Group
Learning and Model Trust Phenomenon, see (Schindel 2020).
References
Works Cited
Adcock, Rick, ed., “Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK)”, retrieve from: http:/ /
sebokwiki.org/wiki/Guide_to_the_Systems_Engineering_Body_of_Knowledge_(SEBoK)
Anderson, P.W., “More Is Different”, Science, v177, No. 4047. (Aug. 4, 1972), pp. 393-396.
Ashby, William Ross, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Wiley, 1956.
Bertalanffy, L. von, (1969). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, George Braziller
Inc.; Revised edition, 1969.
Braha, D., A. Minai, Yaneer Bar-Yam, eds. 2006. Complex engineered systems: Science meets technology, City:
Springer.
Braha, Dan, and Bar-Yam, Yaneer, “The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Development: Empirical and
Analytical Results”, Management Science, Vol. 53, No. 7, July 2007, pp. 1127–1145.
Cardwell, D.S.L. From Watt to Clausius: The Rise of Thermodynamics in the Early Industrial Age. London:
Heinemann, 1971. Checkland, P., System Thinking, System Practice, Wiley, 1999.
Cowan, George, Pines, David, and Meltzer, David, Complexity: Metaphors, Models, and Reality, Proceedings
Volume XIX, Santa Fe Institute Studies in Science of Complexity, Addison-Wesley, 1994.
Davidson, E., Levine, M., eds, “Gene Regulatory Networks”, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. Apr 5 2005; 102(14): 4935.
Retrieve from-- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC556010/
Forbes, Nancy, and Mahon, Basil, Faraday, Maxwell, and the Electromagnetic Field: How Two Men Revolutionized
Physics, Prometheus Books, 2014.
Friedenthal et al, “A World in Motion: Systems Engineering Vision 2025”, International Council on Systems
Engineering, 2014. Friedman, Milton and Friedman, Rose, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, Harcourt, 1980.
Guiggiani, Massimo, The Science of Vehicle Dynamics: Handling, Braking, and Ride of Road and Race Cars,
Springer, 2014.
Hankins, T., Sir William Rowan Hamilton, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.
Holdren, John P., Lander, Eric S., et al, “Report to the President--Better Health Care and Lower Costs: Accelerating
Improvement Through Systems Engineering”, Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology, May 2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast
Hoffman, C. and Schindel, W., “Systems Engineering Community of Practice Social Network Pattern”, Proc. of
INCOSE Great Lakes Regional Conference, 2015.
Holland, John H., Emergence: From Chaos to Order, Perseus, 1998.
INCOSE MBSE Initiative Patterns Working Group web site, at http:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ doku.
php?id=mbse:patterns:patterns
INCOSE MBSE Patterns Working Group, “MBSE Methodology Summary: Pattern‐Based Systems Engineering
(PBSE), Based On S*MBSE Models”, V1.6.1,
INCOSE PBSE Working Group, 2019: https:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ lib/ exe/ fetch.
php?media=mbse:patterns:pbse_extension_of_mbse-- methodology_summary_v1.6.1.pdf
Kline, Morris. Mathematics and the Physical World. Dover, 1981.
Levi, M., Classical Mechanics with Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control, American Mathematical Society,
Providence, Rhode Island, 2014.
MacArthur R. H., and Wilson, E. O., The Theory of Island Biogeography, Princeton U. Press, 2001.
Mokyr, Joel, The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain 1700-1850, Yale University Press, 2009.
Morris, C. R., The Dawn of Innovation: The First American Industrial Revolution, Public Affairs, 2012.
Pauling, L., The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to
Modern Structural Chemistry, 3rd edition, Cornell University Press; 1960
Perez, Tristan, and Fossen, Thor I., “Modelling and Simulation of Marine Surface Vessel Dynamics”, Tutorial, IFAC
Conference on Control Applications in Marine Systems, Bol, Croatia, 2007.
Pérez-Arriaga, Ignacio, et al, “From Distribution Networks to Smart Distribution Systems: Rethinking the Regulation
of European Electricity DSOs”, THINK Project Final Report, European University Institute, 2013.
Pratt, Roger W., ed., Flight Control Systems: Practical Issues in Design and Implementation, IEE Control
Engineering, 2000.
Prigogine, Ilya, From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences, Freeman, 1980.
Rogers, Everett M. Roger, Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition, Free Press, 2003.
Schindel, W., “Inputs to Theoretical Foundations Section of INCOSE Vision 2035”, April, 2020. Retrieve from--
https:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ lib/ exe/ fetch.
php?media=mbse:patterns:science_math_foundations_for_systems_and_systems_engineering--1_hr_awareness_v2.
3.2a.pdf
Schindel, W., “Got Phenomena? Science-Based Disciplines for Emerging Systems Challenges”, in Proc. of INCOSE
2016 International Symposium, 2016.
Schindel, W., “System Interactions: Making the Heart of Systems More Visible”, Proc. of INCOSE Great Lakes
Regional Conference, 2013.
Schindel, W., “What Is the Smallest Model of a System?”, Proc. of the INCOSE 2011 International Symposium,
International Council on Systems Engineering (2011).
Schindel, W., and Dove, R., “Introduction to the Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle MBSE Pattern”, in Proc. of
INCOSE 2016 International Symposium, 2016.
Schindel, W., “Improving Design Review”, ICTT System Sciences, 2007. Servos, John W., Physical Chemistry from
Ostwald to Pauling, Reprint Edition, Princeton University Press, 1996.
Sussman, G, and Wisdom, J., Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2001. Walden, D., et al, eds., Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and
Activities, Fourth Edition, INCOSE, 2015.
Warfield, John N., An Introduction to Systems Science, World Scientific Publ., 2006.
Westfall, Richard S., Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge, 1980.
Wymore, A. Wayne, A Mathematical Theory of Systems Engineering: The Elements, Krieger, 1967.
Primary References
None.
None.

Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)

Lead Author: Caitlyn Singam and Jeffrey Carter
Model-based Systems Engineering [MBSE] is a paradigm that uses formalized representations of systems, known as
models, to support and facilitate the performance of Systems Engineering [SE] tasks throughout a system’s life cycle.
MBSE is frequently contrasted with legacy document-based approaches where systems engineering captures system
design information via multiple independent documents in various non-standardized formats. MBSE consolidates of
system information in system design models, which provide primary SE artifacts. These system models, which are
generally expressed in a standardized modelling language such as Systems Modeling Language [SysML®] express
key system information in a concise, consistent, correct, and coherent format. When implemented properly, MBSE
models permit the standardized consolidation and integration of system knowledge across engineering disciplines
and subsystems and streamline key systems engineering tasks while also minimizing developmental risk.
This article provides an overview of key concepts underlying model-based approaches to systems engineering and
highlights the benefits of utilizing MBSE on projects.
System Models
During the systems engineering process, a substantial amount of information is collected, generated, and/or
maintained regarding the characteristics of the system(s) of interest, composite elements, and interacting
entities/environments. MBSE utilizes models as a means of aggregating and managing these disparate pieces of
information about a system in a centralized repository that can serve as a ‘single source of truth’ and technical
baseline regarding a system of interest.
Definition of a model
Models are representations that are used to capture, analyze, and/or communicate information about a system or
concept. They can vary in scope, purpose, and type, and can be utilized both individually as stand-alone entities as
well as in concert with each other as part of an integrated set (Wymore 1993).
Model Properties
A model can be described and classified with respect to the following properties:
• Scope: the range of relevance of a model. Models can range from capturing the characteristics and interactions of
a system’s components (broad scope), to only focusing on the form and function of a single element in isolation
(narrow scope).
• Domain: the ‘lens’ through which the model views a system. Models can be holistic in nature or can focus on only
highlighting information relevant to certain domains. Domain-specific models generally are used to highlight
certain “perspectives” of a system, whether from the lens of a particular application sector (e.g., aerospace,
biomedicine), discipline (e.g., electrical, mechanical, thermal), subsystem, or system property (e.g., power,
reliability, fault management).
• Formality: the model’s level of adherence to formalized standards for information expression. Models can express
information about systems with varying degrees of precision. The most fundamental of models, which simply
express a basic representation of a system in an unspecified format, do not convey information with precision and
are considered informal. The most formal models comply with well-developed, pre-defined standards
(formalisms) for content and organization, which collectively define ‘languages’ that enable consistent and precise
interpretations of models.
• Abstraction: the degree to which a model suppresses or excludes out-of-scope, unimportant, or irrelevant details.
Abstraction is a necessity with large and complex systems where it is impractical to replicate every aspect of a
given system within a reasonable time and resource expenditure margin.
• Physical/conceptual: whether the model is concrete in nature (i.e., a physical model) or fully conceptual (i.e., an
abstract model).
• Descriptive/analytical: whether a model details qualitative aspects of a system such as requirements, behaviors, or
physical architecture (descriptive model), provides a representation of quantitative aspects of the system such as
mass, reliability, power consumption via mathematical relationships (analytical model), or both (hybrid model).
• Fidelity: the degree to which a model comprehensively captures details about a system’s characteristics, ranging
from models which only capture general information about a system to those which seek to faithfully capture as
much detail about the system as possible.
• Completeness: the extent to which a model captures all relevant domain- information within its scope and at its
intended level of detail.
• Integration: the extent to which a model interacts and interfaces with other relevant models describing the system
of interest or other related/interacting entities.
• Quality: the degree to which the model (not the system it represents) meets the needs of the individuals
performing systems engineering activities. A high-quality model should be readily usable, have minimal
ambiguity, and provide accurate, relevant information needed to support tasks associated with the design,
development, operation, and/or maintenance of a system.
Of these properties, formalization and abstraction are generally the most frequently discussed in relation to MBSE
(Vogelsang et al. 2017) as they have the greatest impact on whether a model can be effectively used as part of an
MBSE workflow.
Criteria for Effective MBSE Models

While a successful MBSE workflow can involve the use of several different interconnected or standalone models of
various scopes and types based on user needs, the main system model in an MBSE projects generally should have
the following characteristics:
1. A scope which matches the scope of the project (i.e., it should encompass the entire system of interest);
2. Representative of a holistic perspective from all relevant domains.
3. Strict compliance with a previously established standardized modeling language, whether that be an existing
language such as SysML® or a custom formalism.
4. Fully abstracted, to only include relevant information appropriate for the system of interest and its desired
use-case(s).
5. Conceptual in nature, to permit the capture of intangible information (e.g., system requirements)
6. Containing a description of the system functional and structural architecture at minimum and supplemented by
integrated analytical/quantitative property descriptions as needed.
7. Demonstrating sufficient fidelity to capture relevant system elements and behavior.
8. Fully complete given its scope.
9. Integrated with any necessary auxiliary models.
10. Sufficiently high-quality as to meet the needs of those designing, developing, or otherwise working on the
system.
In terms of content, effective system models are expected to capture key system information regarding requirements,
system functionality/behavior, structure/form, properties, and interconnections between system components.
Modeling Languages
Modeling languages are specifications which provide standardized guidelines and structures for expressing system
information. These languages, which provide both the structures or ‘syntax’ in which the information can be
expressed, as well as the ‘semantics’ that govern the way in which the information should be interpreted, can be
selected based on user preferences and needs. Different languages utilize different formats to express information
(e.g., visual or textual means), as well as different paradigms (e.g., object-oriented, functional, etc.) in order to group
information. Visual languages are generally preferred for modeling due to being readily readable, and object-oriented
modeling languages are frequently used in systems engineering contexts since they readily lend themselves to
systems which can be decomposed, or otherwise thought of, in terms of objects.
SysML®, an extension of Unified Modeling Language [UML] for systems engineering, is a one of the more
frequently used modeling languages for MBSE. It is an graphical language that utilizes diagrams and tables in order
to express system information, and provides a standard set of nine diagram types which can be used to organize and
express system information (Friedenthal, Moore, and Steiner 2014). The collective diagrams (each of which can be
considered a model in its own right), when interconnected, provide a means of representing system structure,
behavior, and requirements in abstracted form. A number of other options have been proposed as architecture
description languages [ADLs] for specifically modeling system architectures. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 (Systems and
software engineering - Architecture description) specifies minimum requirements for a language to qualify as an
ADL (ISO 2011).
MBSE users have the option of using SysML®, a similar graphical-language option like UML, a domain or
framework specific language, or potentially developing a custom formalism for their team or organization (Bonnet et
al. 2016). It is possible to formalize textual documents to create models, though doing so requires the establishment
of a domain dictionary in order to remove the ambiguity inherent in diction choice, as well as the use of rigid
grammatical structures which may limit readability.
Regardless of what modeling language is used for an MBSE project, it is important that the language be inherently
scalable, standardized, readable, reusable, and abstractable to enable the development of effective MBSE models.
Architecture Frameworks
A second layer of structure that exists overtop a modeling language is an architecture framework. Architecture
frameworks are used to organize the information expressed via modeling language. Whereas a modeling language
provides the structure needed to express multiple ‘views’ (diagrams) of system elements and their interactions,
architecture frameworks enable the user to group those views based on the elements they represent, and organize
them in a way that allows traceability, eases navigation through the model, and aids in the identification of missing
information (e.g., an omitted element). Architecture frameworks are a specific type of pattern that frequently get
defined and standardized for MBSE models. There are also organization- and domain-specific design patterns that
can be employed in MBSE models to meet stakeholder needs in more specific model use-cases.
Architecture frameworks and model design patterns play an important role in enabling the re-use of MBSE models
(Wu et al. 2019), as certain architectural design patterns may be frequently used across multiple projects even when
the specifications of the individual components differ (e.g. building a house with the same structure but different
décor). By organizing a system model in a sufficiently abstracted manner, it may be possible to identify the points of
difference between an old project and a new one and make the appropriate changes to element properties in the
model without having to redo the entire model development process.
Process Frameworks
The MBSE model development workflow can be streamlined using pre-defined process frameworks, which provide
tailorable guidelines and patterns for integrating MBSE into the generic systems engineering process. While process
frameworks are typically defined on an organizational level, they generally all exhibit some form of configuration
management process, access guidelines, practices for updating the model, and means of integrating the MBSE model
into all or nearly all systems engineering lifecycle activities. The benefits of MBSE usage are limited when the
system model falls out of date or otherwise becomes inaccurate, so regular model updates are a minimum
requirement for MBSE process frameworks.
For smaller projects, the MBSE process framework may be as simple as utilizing the version control features that
come included as part of many collaborative modeling software platforms and integrating model usage and periodic
updates as checkpoints in the systems engineering process. More complex projects can formalize MBSE process
frameworks in a manner that can be verified against configuration management and systems engineering
management plans (Fisher et al. 2014).
Benefits of MBSE
The MBSE workflow and the creation of a centralized system model emphasizes a holistic, standards-based
approach to systems engineering (Madni and Sievers 2018). Since the creation of a system model requires
reconciliation of information from multiple domains and subsystems, inconsistencies and defects are readily
identifiable during the modeling process (Carroll and Malins 2016) and can be addressed or eliminated earlier on in
the system lifecycle process than would otherwise be done in a document-based workflow. Similarly, the
centralization and standardization of information ensures a reduction in miscommunications and other development
risks since all project team members are using the same source of information for reference. Format standardization
also makes it easier to search for and extract information, compared to a document-based workflow where
information is stored across multiple documents in different formats.
More broadly, MBSE provides a better means of managing complexity than document-based using formalized
structures and abstraction. Cross-referencing within MBSE models makes it possible to begin design verification,
requirements validation, and systems assurance earlier on in the system lifecycle, and to continue assessing system
design quality throughout a project at minimum cost. Furthermore, models can be reused and adapted for similar
systems, which enables accelerated system development with minimal risk.
Digital Transformation
While DBSE has traditionally been the paradigm of preference for artifact generation and for supporting systems
engineering efforts in the pre-digital age, digital transformation of the generic systems engineering workflow in
recent years has catalyzed the widespread adoption of MBSE and broader model-based [MBx] approaches. Digital
environments and software tools have made it easier and faster to generate, maintain, and use system models,
especially in a collaborative setting (Ma et al. 2022). If implemented appropriately, digital MBSE models can be
used to programmatically identify inconsistencies, enable interactive simulations of system behavior, simultaneously
propagate changes across an entire project (rather than updating artifacts one-by-one), automatically generate
document-based artifacts, and more. The advent of new software for supporting and automating systems engineering
tasks has opened additional avenues for expanding the capabilities of system models, and for increasing the
efficiency with which systems engineering tasks can be performed.
Digital Twins
When MBSE models of physical systems are built with sufficient completeness and fidelity, it is possible for them to
function as ‘digital twins’ of the systems they represent. Digital twins provide a means of accurately representing a
system’s form and function throughout the system’s lifecycle, all within a digital environment. Creating such digital
twins provides number of advantages, including allowing individuals to perform testing, analysis, and optimization
of systems in a virtual environment at no risk to the actual system of interest and often at a greatly reduced
cost/burden (Schluse, Atorf, and Rossmann 2017). Digital twins also make it possible to represent the behavior of
systems under conditions which would be impractical or impossible to induce under experimental conditions,
thereby making it possible to obtain information not obtainable via study of the original physical system.
MBSE versus DBSE

Although MBSE and document-based approaches are usually presented as alternatives to each other, it is possible to
use MBSE and document-based in conjunction with each other on the same project. In work environments where
document-based is the norm, stakeholders may expect or require the submission of textual document artifacts, or
there may be issues with a lack of familiarity with any modeling languages (Kim, Wagner, and Jimenez 2019); in
such instances, it may be necessary to utilize a hybrid approach where documents are generated from the design
model as static representations of the system for project milestones.
References
Works Cited
Bonnet, Stéphane, Jean-Luc Voirin, Daniel Exertier, and Véronique Normand. 2016. “Not (Strictly) Relying on
SysML for MBSE: Language, Tooling and Development Perspectives: The Arcadia/Capella Rationale.” In 2016
Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSCON.2016.7490559.
Carroll, Edward Ralph, and Robert Joseph Malins. 2016. “Systematic Literature Review: How Is Model-Based
Systems Engineering Justified?.” SAND2016-2607, 1561164. https://doi.org/10.2172/1561164.
Fisher, Amit, Mike Nolan, Sanford Friedenthal, Michael Loeffler, Mark Sampson, Manas Bajaj, Lonnie VanZandt,
Krista Hovey, John Palmer, and Laura Hart. 2014. “3.1.1 Model Lifecycle Management for MBSE.” INCOSE
International Symposium 24 (1): 207–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2014.tb03145.x.
Friedenthal, Sanford, Alan Moore, and Rick Steiner. 2014. A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling
Language. Morgan Kaufmann. ISO. 2011. “ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010.” Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization (ISO). https:/ / www. iso. org/ cms/ render/ live/ en/ sites/ isoorg/ contents/ data/ standard/ 05/
05/50508.html.
Kim, So Young, David Wagner, and Alejandro Jimenez. 2019. “Challenges in Applying Model-Based Systems
Engineering: Human-Centered Design Perspective,” September. https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/handle/2014/51368.
Ma, Junda, Guoxin Wang, Jinzhi Lu, Hans Vangheluwe, Dimitris Kiritsis, and Yan Yan. 2022. “Systematic
Literature Review of MBSE Tool-Chains.” Applied Sciences 12 (7): 3431. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073431.
Madni, Azad M., and Michael Sievers. 2018. “Model-Based Systems Engineering: Motivation, Current Status, and
Research Opportunities.” Systems Engineering 21 (3): 172–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21438.
Schluse, Michael, Linus Atorf, and Juergen Rossmann. 2017. “Experimentable Digital Twins for Model-Based
Systems Engineering and Simulation-Based Development.” In 2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference
(SysCon), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSCON.2017.7934796.
Vogelsang, Andreas, Tiago Amorim, Florian Pudlitz, Peter Gersing, and Jan Philipps. 2017. “Should I Stay or
Should I Go? On Forces That Drive and Prevent MBSE Adoption in the Embedded Systems Industry.” In
Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, edited by Michael Felderer, Daniel Méndez Fernández, Burak
Turhan, Marcos Kalinowski, Federica Sarro, and Dietmar Winkler, 182–98. Cham: Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_14.
Wu, Quentin, David Gouyon, Sophie Boudau, and Éric Levrat. 2019. “Capitalization and Reuse with Patterns in a
Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Framework.” In 2019 International Symposium on Systems Engineering
(ISSE), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSE46696.2019.8984571.
Wymore, A. Wayne. 1993. Model-Based Systems Engineering: An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of
Discrete Systems and to the Tricotyledon Theory of System Design. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Primary References
USA: International Council on Systems Engineering. INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02. Available at: http:/ / www. incose.
org/ProductsPubs/pdf/techdata/MTTC/MBSE_Methodology_Survey_2008-0610_RevB-JAE2.pdf.
INCOSE. 2021. Systems Engineering Vision 2035. Torrance, CA, USA: International Council on Systems
Engineering.
OMG. "MBSE Wiki." Object Management Group (OMG). Available at: http:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ doku.
php.Accessed 05 April 2022.
Downs, E., P. Clare, and I. Coe. 1992. Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method: Application and Context.
Hertfordshire, UK: Prentice-Hall International.
Kossiakoff, A. and W. Sweet. 2003. "Chapter 14," in Systems Engineering Principles and Practice. New York, NY,
USA: Wiley and Sons.
NDIA. 2011. Final Report of the Model Based Engineering (MBE) Subcommittee. Arlington, VA, USA: National
Defense Industrial Association. Available at: http:/ / www. ndia. org/ Divisions/ Divisions/ SystemsEngineering/
Documents/ Committees/ M_S%20Committee/ Reports/
MBE_Final_Report_Document_(2011-04-22)_Marked_Final_Draft.pdf
Oliver, D., T. Kelliber, and J. Keegan. 1997. Engineering Complex Systems with Models and Objects. New York,

279
Knowledge Area: Systems Lifecycle

Approaches
Systems Lifecycle Approaches

Lead Authors: Rick Adcock, Sanford Friedenthal
In this Knowledge Area, we introduce the following key principles: life cycle, life cycle model and life cycle
processes. A generic SE paradigm is described; this forms a starting point for discussions of more detailed life cycle
knowledge.
Topics
theme. The Kas, in turn, are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
• Generic Life Cycle Model
• Applying Life Cycle Processes
• Life Cycle Processes and Enterprise Need
See the article Matrix of Implementation Examples for a mapping of case studies and vignettes included in Part 7 to
topics covered in Part 3.
Life Cycle Terminology

The term life cycle is one that engineering has borrowed from the natural sciences; it is used to describe both the
changes a single organism goes through over its life and how the lives of multiple organisms interact to sustain or
evolve a population. We use it in engineering in the same ways to describe the complete life of an instance of a
system-of-interest (SoI); and the managed combination of multiple such instances to provide capabilities which
deliver stakeholder satisfaction.
A life cycle model identifies the major stages that a specific SoI goes through, from its inception to its retirement.
Life cycle models are generally implemented in development projects and are strongly aligned with management
planning and decision making.
Generic Systems Engineering Paradigm

Figure 1 identifies the overall goals of any SE effort, which are: the understanding of stakeholder value; the selection
of a specific need to be addressed; the transformation of that need into a system (the product or service that provides
for the need); and the use of that product or service to provide the stakeholder value. This paradigm has been
developed according to the principles of the systems approach discussed in Part 2 and is used to establish a basis for
the KAs in Part 3 and Part 4 of the SEBoK.
Figure 1. Generic Systems Engineering Paradigm. (SEBoK Original)
On the left side of Figure 1, there are SoI's identified in the formation of a system breakdown structure. SoI 1 is
broken down into its basic elements, which in this case are systems as well (SoI 2 and SoI 3). These two systems are
composed of system elements that are not refined any further.
On the right side of Figure 1, each SoI has a corresponding life cycle model which is composed of stages that are
populated with processes. The function of these processes is to define the work that is to be performed and the
associated artifacts to be produced. In a model-based approach, these artifacts are captured in the system model that
represents the SoIs. Note that some of the requirements defined to meet the need are distributed in the early stages of
the life cycle for SoI 1, while others are designated to the life cycles of SoI 2 or SoI 3. The decomposition of the
system illustrates the fundamental concept of recursion as defined in the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 standard; with the
standard being reapplied for each SoI (ISO 2015). It is important to point out that the requirements may be allocated
to different system elements, which may be integrated in different life cycle stages of any of the three SoI's;
however, together they form a cohesive system. For example, SoI 1 may be a simple vehicle composed of a chassis,
motor and controls, SoI 2 an embedded hardware system, and Sol 3 a software intensive interface and control
system. STOPPED HERE When performing SE processes in stages, iteration (glossary) between stages is often
required (e.g. in successive refinement of the definition of the system or in providing an update or upgrade of an
existing system). The work performed in the processes and stages can be performed in a concurrent manner within
the life cycle of any of the systems of interest and also among the multiple life cycles.
This paradigm provides a fundamental framework for understanding generic SE (seen in Part 3), as well as for the
application of SE to the various types of systems described in Part 4.
References
Works Cited
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015.Systems and Software Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers.ISO/IEC 15288, 2015.
Primary References
4.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0.
Lawson, H. 2010. A Journey Through the Systems Landscape. London, UK: College Publications.
None.

Generic Life Cycle Model

Lead Authors: Kevin Forsberg, Richard Turner, Contributing Author: Rick Adcock
As discussed in the generic life cycle paradigm in Introduction to Life Cycle Processes, each system-of-interest (SoI)
has an associated life cycle model. The generic life cycle model below applies to a single SoI. SE must generally be
synchronized across a number of tailored instances of such life cycle models to fully satisfy stakeholder needs. More
complex life cycle models which address this are described in Life Cycle Models.
A Generic System Life Cycle Model

There is no single “one-size-fits-all” system life cycle model that can provide specific guidance for all project
situations. Figure 1, adapted from (Lawson 2010, ISO 2015, and ISO 2010), provides a generic life cycle model that
forms a starting point for the most common versions of pre-specified, evolutionary, sequential, opportunistic, and
concurrent life cycle processes. The model is defined as a set of stages, within which technical and management
activities are performed. The stages are terminated by decision gates, where the key stakeholders decide whether to
proceed into the next stage, to remain in the current stage, or to terminate or re-scope related projects.
Figure 1. A Generic Life Cycle Model. (SEBoK Original)
Elaborated definitions of these stages are provided in the glossary below and in various other ways in subsequent
articles.
The Concept Definition stage begins with a decision by a protagonist (individual or organization) to invest
resources in a new or improved engineered system. Inception begins with a set of stakeholders agreeing to the need
for change to an engineered system context and exploring whether new or modified SoI can be developed, in which
the life cycle benefits are worth the investments in the life cycle costs. Activities include: developing the concept of
operations and business case; determining the key stakeholders and their desired capabilities; negotiating the
stakeholder requirements among the key stakeholders and selecting the system’s non-developmental items (NDIs).
The System Definition stage begins when the key stakeholders decide that the business needs and stakeholder
requirements are sufficiently well defined to justify committing the resources necessary to define a solution options
in sufficient detail to answer the life cycle cost question identified in concept definition and provide a basis of system
realization if appropriate. Activities include developing system architectures; defining and agreeing upon levels of
system requirements; developing systems-level life cycle plans and performing system analysis in order to illustrate
the compatibility and feasibility of the resulting system definition. The transition into the system realization stage
can lead to either single-pass or multiple-pass development.
It should be noted that the concept and system definition activities above describe activities performed by systems
engineers when performing systems engineering. There is a very strong concurrency between proposing a problem
situation or opportunity and describing one or more possible system solutions, as discussed in Systems Approach
Applied to Engineered Systems. Other related definition activities include: prototyping or actual development of
high-risk items to show evidence of system feasibility; collaboration with business analysts or performing mission
effectiveness analyses to provide a viable business case for proceeding into realization; and modifications to realized
systems to improve their production, support or utilization. These activities will generally happen through the system
life cycle to handle system evolution, especially under multiple-pass development. This is discussed in more detail in
the Life Cycle Models knowledge area.
The System Realization stage begins when the key stakeholders decide that the SoI architecture and feasibility
evidence are sufficiently low-risk to justify committing the resources necessary to develop and sustain the initial
operational capability (IOC) or the single-pass development of the full operational capability (FOC). Activities
include: construction of the developmental elements; integration of these elements with each other and with the
non-developmental item (NDI) elements; verification and validation of the elements and their integration as it
proceeds; and preparing for the concurrent production, support, and utilization activities.
The System Production, Support, and Utilization (PSU) stages begin when the key stakeholders decide that the
SoI life-cycle feasibility and safety are at a sufficiently low-risk level that justifies committing the resources
necessary to produce, field, support, and utilize the system over its expected lifetime. The lifetimes of production,
support, and utilization are likely to be different. After market support will generally continue after production is
complete and users will often continue to use unsupported systems.
System Production involves the fabrication of instances or versions of an SoI and of associated after-market spare
parts. It also includes production quality monitoring and improvement; product or service acceptance activities; and
continuous production process improvement. It may include low-rate initial production (LRIP) to mature the
production process or to promote the continued preservation of the production capability for future spikes in demand.
Systems Support includes various classes of maintenance: corrective (for defects), adaptive (for interoperability
with independently evolving co-dependent systems), and perfective (for enhancement of performance, usability, or
other key performance parameters). It also includes hot lines and responders for user or emergency support and the
provisioning of needed consumables (gas, water, power, etc.). Its boundaries include some gray areas, such as the
boundary between small system enhancements and the development of larger complementary new additions, and the
boundary between rework/maintenance of earlier fielded increments in incremental or evolutionary development.
Systems Support usually continues after System Production is terminated.
System Utilization includes the use of the SoI in its context by operators, administrators, the general public, or
systems above it in the system-of-interest hierarchy. It usually continues after Systems Support is terminated.
The System Retirement stage is often executed incrementally as system versions or elements become obsolete or
are no longer economical to support and therefore undergo disposal or recycling of their content. Increasingly
affordable considerations make system re-purposing an attractive alternative.
Applying the Life Cycle Model

Figure 1 shows just the single-step approach for proceeding through the stages of a SoI life cycle. In the Life Cycle
Models knowledge area, we discuss examples of real-world enterprises and their drivers, both technical and
organizational. These have led to a number of documented approaches for sequencing the life cycle stages to deal
with some of the issues raised. The Life Cycle Models KA summarizes a number of incremental and evolutionary
life cycle models, including their main strengths and weaknesses, and also discusses criteria for choosing the best-fit
approach.
In Figure 1, we have listed key technical and management activities critical to successful completion of each stage.
This is a useful way to illustrate the goals of each stage and gives an indication of how processes align with these
stages. This can be important when considering how to plan for resources, milestones, etc. However, it is important
to observe that the execution of process activities is not compartmentalized to particular life cycle stages (Lawson
2010). In Applying Life Cycle Processes, we discuss a number of views on the nature of the inter-relationships
between process activities within a life cycle model. In general, the technical and management activities are applied
in accordance with the principles of concurrency, iteration and recursion described in the generic life cycle paradigm.
References
Works Cited
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC 15288:2015.
ISO/IEC. 2010. Systems and Software Engineering, Part 1: Guide for Life Cycle Management. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC
24748-1:2010.
Primary References
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management, 3rd Ed. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley &
Sons.
INCOSE. 2015. 'Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities', version
None.

Applying Life Cycle Processes

The Generic Life Cycle Model describes a set of life cycle stages and their relationships. In defining this we
described some of the technical and management activities critical to the success of each stage. While this
association of activity to stage is important, we must also recognize the through life relationships between these
activities to ensure we take a systems approach.
Systems Engineering technical and management activities are defined in a set of life cycle processes. These group
together closely related activities and allow us to describe the relationships between them. In this topic, we discuss a
number of views on the nature of the inter-relationships between process activities within a life cycle model.
In general, the technical and management activities are applied in accordance with the principles of concurrency,
iteration and recursion described in the generic systems engineering paradigm. These principles overlap to some
extent and can be seen as related views of the same fundamental need to ensure we can take a holistic systems
approach, while allowing for some structuring and sequence of our activities. The views presented below should be
seen as examples of the ways in which different SE authors present these overlapping ideas.
Life Cycle Process Terminology
Process
A process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. Processes can be performed by
humans or machines transforming inputs into outputs.
In the SEBoK, processes are interpreted in several ways, including: technical, life cycle, business, or manufacturing
flow processes. Many of the Part 3 sections are structured along technical processes (e.g. design, verification);
however, Life Cycle Models also describes a number of high-level program life cycle sequence which call
themselves processes (e.g. rational unified process (RUP), etc.).
Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering and Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering utilize processes that are
related to services and business enterprise operations.
Systems Engineering life cycle processes define technical and management activities performed across one or more
stages to provide the information needed to make life cycle decisions; and to enable realization, use and sustainment
of a system-of-interest (SoI) across its life cycle model as necessary. This relationship between life cycle models and
process activities can be used to describe how SE is applied to different system contexts.
Requirement
A requirement is something that is needed or wanted but may not be compulsory in all circumstances. Requirements
may refer to product or process characteristics or constraints. Different understandings of requirements are
dependent upon process state, level of abstraction, and type (e.g. functional, performance, constraint). An individual
requirement may also have multiple interpretations over time.
Requirements exist at multiple levels of enterprise or systems with multiple levels of abstraction. This ranges from
the highest level of the enterprise capability or customer need to the lowest level of the system design. Thus,
requirements need to be defined at the appropriate level of detail for the level of the entity to which they apply. See
the article Life Cycle Processes and Enterprise Needs for further detail on the transformation of needs and
requirements from the enterprise to the lowest system element across concept definition and system definition.
Architecture
An architecture refers to the organizational structure of a system, whereby the system can be defined in different
contexts. Architecting is the art or practice of designing the structures. See below for further discussions on the use
of levels of Logical and Physical architecture models to define related system and system elements; and support the
requirements activities.
Architectures can apply for a system product, enterprise, or service. For example, Part 3 mostly considers product or
service related architectures that systems engineers create, but enterprise architecture describes the structure of an
organization. Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering interprets enterprise architecture in a much broader manner than
an IT system used across an organization, which is a specific instance of architecture.
Frameworks are closely related to architectures, as they are ways of representing architectures. See Architecture
Framework for definition and examples.
Other Processes
A number of other life cycle processes are mentioned below, including system analysis, integration, verification,
validation, deployment, operation, maintenance and disposal; they are discussed in detail in the System Realization
and System Deployment and Use knowledge areas.
Life Cycle Process Concurrency

In the Generic Life Cycle Model, we have listed key activities critical to successful completion of each stage. This is
a useful way to illustrate the goals of each stage and gives an indication of how processes align with these stages.
This can be important when considering how to plan for resources, milestones, etc. However, it is important to
observe that the execution of process activities is not compartmentalized to particular life cycle stages (Lawson
2010).
Figure 1 shows a simple illustration of the through life nature of technical and management processes. This figure
builds directly on the "hump diagram" principles described in Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems.
Figure 1: Generic Relationships between life cycle stages and processes (modified from Lawson 2010)
The lines on this diagram represent the amount of activity for each process over the generic life cycle. The peaks (or
humps) of activity represent the periods when a process activity becomes the main focus of a stage. The activity
before and after these peaks may represent through life issues raised by a process focus, e.g. how likely maintenance
constraints will be represented in the system requirements. These considerations help maintain a more holistic
perspective in each stage, or they can represent forward planning to ensure the resources needed to complete future
activities have been included in estimates and plans, e.g. all resources needed for verification are in place or
available. Ensuring this hump diagram principle is implemented in a way which is achievable, affordable and
appropriate to the situation is a critical driver for all life cycle models.
Life Cycle Process Iteration

The concept of iteration applies to life cycle stages within a life cycle model, and also applies to processes. Figure 2
below gives an example of iteration in the life cycle processes associated with concept and system definition.
Figure 2. Example of Iterations of Processes Related to System Definition (Faisandier 2012). Permission Granted by Sinergy'Com. All other
There is generally a close coupling between the exploration of a problem or opportunity and the definition of one or
more feasible solutions; see Systems Approach to Engineered Systems. Thus, the related processes in this example
will normally be applied in an iterative way. The relationships between these processes are further discussed in the
System Definition KA.
Figure 3 below gives an example of the iteration between the other life cycle processes.
Figure 3. System Realization. (SEBoK Original)

The iterations in this example relate to the overlaps in process outcomes shown in Figure 1. They either allow
consideration of cross process issues to influence the system definition (e.g. considering likely integration or
verification approaches might make us think about failure modes or add data collection or monitoring elements into
the system) or they allow risk management and through life planning activities to identify the need for future
activities.
The relationships between these processes are further discussed in system realization and system deployment and
use.
Life Cycle Process Recursion

The comprehensive definition of a SoI is generally achieved using decomposition layers and system elements. Figure
4 presents a fundamental schema of a system breakdown structure.
Figure 4. Hierarchical Decomposition of a System-of-Interest (Faisandier 2012). Permission Granted by Sinergy'Com. All other rights are
reserved by the copyright owner.
In each decomposition layer and for each system, the System Definition processes are applied recursively because
the notion of "system" is in itself recursive; the notions of SoI, system, and system element are based on the same
concepts (see Part 2). Figure 5 shows an example of the recursion of life cycle processes.
Figure 5. Recursion of Processes on Layers (Faisandier 2012). Permission Granted by Sinergy'Com. All other rights are reserved by the
copyright owner.
Systems Approach to Solution Synthesis

The sections above give different perspectives on how SE life cycle processes are related and how this shapes their
application. Solution synthesis is described in Part 2 as a way of taking a systems approach to creating solutions.
Synthesis is, in general, a mixture of top-down and bottom-up approaches as discussed below.
Top-Down Approach: From Problem to Solution

In a top-down approach, concept definition activities are focused primarily on understanding the problem, the
operational needs/requirements within the problem space, and the conditions that constrain the solution and bound
the solution space. The concept definition activities determine the mission context, mission analysis, and the needs to
be fulfilled in that context by a new or modified system (i.e. the SoI), and address stakeholder needs and
requirements.
The system definition activities consider functional, behavioral, temporal, and physical aspects of one or more
solutions based on the results of concept definition. System analysis considers the advantages and disadvantages of
the proposed system solutions both in terms of how they satisfy the needs established in concept definition, as well
as the relative cost, time scales and other development issues. This may require further refinement of the concept
definition to ensure all legacy relationships and stakeholders relevant to a particular solution architecture have been
considered in the stakeholder requirements.
The outcomes of this iteration between Concept Definition and System Definition define a required system solution
and its associated problem context, which are used for System Realization, System Deployment and Use, and
Product and Service Life Management of one or more solution implementations. In this approach, problem
understanding and solution selection activities are completed in the front-end portion of system development and
design and then maintained and refined as necessary throughout the life cycle of any resulting solution systems.
Top-down activities can be sequential, iterative, recursive or evolutionary depending upon the life cycle model.
Bottom-Up Approach: Evolution of the Solution

In some situations, the concept definition activities determine the need to evolve existing capabilities or add new
capabilities to an existing system. During the concept definition, the alternatives to address the needs are evaluated.
Engineers are then led to reconsider the system definition in order to modify or adapt some structural, functional,
behavioral, or temporal properties during the product or service life cycle for a changing context of use or for the
purpose of improving existing solutions.
Reverse engineering is often necessary to enable system engineers to (re)characterize the properties of the
system-of-interest (SoI) or its elements. This is an important step to ensure that system engineers understand the SoI
before beginning modification. For more information on system definition, see the System Definition article.
A bottom-up approach is necessary for analysis purposes, or for (re)using existing elements in the design
architecture. Changes in the context of use or a need for improvement can prompt this. In contrast, a top-down
approach is generally used to define an initial design solution corresponding to a problem or a set of needs.
Solution Synthesis
In most real problems, a combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches provides the right mixture of
innovative solution thinking driven by need, and constrained and pragmatic thinking driven by what already exists.
This is often referred to as a “middle-out” approach.
As well as being the most pragmatic approach, synthesis has the potential to keep the life cycle focused on whole
system issues, while allowing the exploration of the focused levels of detail needed to describe realizable solutions;
see Synthesising System Solutions for more information.
References
Works Cited
Faisandier, A. 2012. Systems Architecture and Design. Belberaud, France: Sinergy'Com.
Primary References
None.

Life Cycle Processes and Enterprise Need

The Generic Life Cycle Model describes a simple translation from a need to achieve an outcome to a proposal to
realize a new or modified engineered system. This then forms the basis for the decision to invest time, money and
other resources in the life cycle of that system-of-interest (SoI). A significant proportion of the SE activities involved
in this transformation involve varying levels and types of requirements.
Requirements and Life Cycle

During the concept definition stage of a life cycle, as the enterprise identifies new capabilities that are desired, the
business or mission analysis develops a high level set of strategies and needs (which may be expressed as mission or
business requirements) that reflect the problem space perspective. As the solution space is explored and solution
classes are characterized, stakeholder needs are developed and transformed into stakeholder requirements (from a
user perspective). After the solution class has been determined and the specific solution is sought, during the system
definition stage of a life cycle, the stakeholder requirements are transformed into system requirements (from a
solution perspective). As the system definition recursively defines the lower level detail of the solution, requirements
are defined with lower levels of abstraction. At the highest level, the ideal requirement is
implementation-independent, and therefore not specific to a solution, allowing for a range of possible solutions. At
the lowest level, requirement statements may become more specific to the selected solution.
Concept Definition has further descriptions of business or enterprise and stakeholder needs and requirements. It
discusses how the new capability for the business or enterprise is defined as part of the understanding of the problem
space. It also discusses the development of the stakeholder needs and their transformation into requirements from the
user perspective.
System Definition has further descriptions of requirements and their types (e.g. system requirement, stakeholder
requirement, derived requirement). It discusses how different process roles/states, levels, and the nature of
requirements apply to the understanding of requirements.
Transforming Enterprise Needs to Requirements

Needs and requirements can exist at a number of levels and the terminology used to describe these levels will vary
between application domains and the enterprises which serve them. This can make it difficult to associate generic SE
life cycle processes with them. Ryan (2013) proposes a generic model (see Figure 1) in which an enterprise of some
kind forms a focus for translating strategic intentions into a system definition. There is an enterprise view in which
enterprise leadership sets the enterprise strategies, concepts and plans; a business management view in which
business management derives business needs and constraints as well as formalizes their requirements; a business
operations view in which stakeholders define their needs and requirements. In the systems view, an engineered
system is defined, expanding to views at the lower level of system elements if needed. Note that an engineered
system may comprise a number of elements including products, people, and processes. A system architecture can be
created to define logical and physical views of how these elements together enable a needed capability for the
organization.
Figure 1. Transformation of needs into requirements (Ryan, 2013) Permission granted by M. Ryan. All other rights are reserved by
the copyright owner.
In the following discussion, Ryan further defines a set of general terminology to define levels of need and
requirements and associates them with generic organizational roles. For a discussion of how this general description
might map onto different application contexts or organizational structures, see Part 4 and Part 5 respectively.
The various views in Figure 1 are referred to as layers. At the highest layer, the enterprise has a number of strategies
that will guide its future. In the illustration above, for example, a system has its genesis in a Concept of Operations
(ConOps) or Strategic Business Plan (SBP) that communicates the leadership’s intentions with regard to the
operation of the organization in terms of existing systems and systems to be developed. At this layer the ConOps or
SBP defines the enterprise in terms of ‘brand’ and establishes a mission statement and corresponding goals and
objectives, which clearly state the reason for the enterprise and its strategy for moving forward.
The Business or Mission Analysis Process begins with the organization’s mission or vision statement, goals and
objectives communicated by the ConOps or SBP. Business management uses this guidance to define business needs,
largely in the form of life-cycle concepts, which capture the business management’s concepts for acquisition,
development, marketing, operations, deployment, support, and retirement. These concepts are then used to define
specific needs for that layer.
The business needs contained in the life-cycle concepts are elaborated and formalized into business requirements,
which are documented in the Business Requirements Specification (BRS) or Business Requirement Document
(BRD). The process by which business needs are transformed into business requirements is called mission analysis
or business analysis.
Once business management is satisfied their needs and requirements are reasonably complete, they pass them on to
the business operations layer. Here, the Stakeholder Needs and Requirements (SNR) Definition Process uses the
ConOps or SBP and concepts contained in the life-cycle concepts as guidance. The Requirements Engineer (RE) or
Business Analyst (BA) leads stakeholders from the business operations layer through a structured process to elicit
stakeholder needs—in the form of a refined OpsCon or similar document and other life-cycle concepts (see Figure
1). The RE or BA uses a structured process to elicit specific needs, as documented in user stories, use cases,
scenarios, system concepts, or operational concepts. For further discussion of the Concept of Operations and the
Operational Concept Document, and their interplay, see ANSI/AIAA G-043-2012e, Guide to the Preparation of
Operational Concept Documents.
Stakeholder needs are then transformed into a formal set of Stakeholder Requirements, which are documented in the
Stakeholder Requirement Specification (StRS) or Stakeholder Requirement Document (StRD). That transformation
is guided by a well-defined, repeatable, rigorous, and documented process of requirements analysis. This
requirements analysis may involve the use of functional flow diagrams, timeline analysis, N2 Diagrams, design
reference missions, modeling and simulations, movies, pictures, states and modes analysis, fault tree analysis, failure
modes and effects analysis, and trade studies. In some cases, these requirements analysis methods may make use of
views created as part of a high level logical architecture.
At the system layer, in the System Requirements Definition Process, the requirements in the StRS are then
transformed by the RE or BA into System Requirements, which are documented in the System Requirement
Specification (SyRS) or System Requirement Document (SyRD). As in the previous process, the RE or BA
accomplishes the transformation of needs into requirements using the same requirements analysis methods described
above to define the requirements. At each layer, the resulting requirements will be documented, agreed-to, baselined,
and put under configuration management. As above, the system requirements analysis may also be linked to
appropriate logical and physical architecture, either informally or under shared configuration control. Note that some
organizations may prepare individual life-cycle concepts for each of a number of systems that are developed to meet
the business needs.
Once a set of requirements has been documented, agreed-to, and baselined at one layer, they will flow down to the
next layer as shown in Figure 1. At the next layer, the requirements are a result of the transformation process of the
needs at that layer as well a result of the decomposition or derivation of the requirements from the previous layer. As
such, a number of SyRS or SyRD requirements may be either decomposed from (that is, made explicit by the
requirements of) or derived from (that is, implied by the requirements of) the StRS or StRD. The same is true at the
subsystem or system element layer, where a number of the subsystem or system element requirements may be either
decomposed or derived from the SyRS or SyRD. In all cases, for each layer shown in Figure 1, the set of
requirements can be traced back to the requirements at the previous layer from which they were either decomposed
or derived. This process continues for the next layer of system elements.
How requirements are expressed differs through these layers, and therefore so do the rules for expressing them. As
requirements are developed – and solutions designed – down through the layers of abstraction, we expect statements
of requirement to become more and more specific. At the highest level, the ideal requirement is not specific to a
particular solution and permits a range of possible solutions. At the lowest level, statements of requirement will be
entirely specific to the selected solution. It is important to note that the form of requirements at one layer may not be
appropriate for another layer. For example, at the business management layer, there may be a requirement that all
products are “safe”. While this is a poor system requirement, it is appropriate for the Business Management layer. At
the next layer, business operations, there will be less ambiguous and more detailed requirements that define “safe.”
These requirements apply across all product lines. At the system layer, more specific safety requirements will be
developed for that specific system. These requirements will then be allocated to the system elements at the next
lower layer.
References
Works Cited
Guide to the Preparation of Operational Concept Documents, ANSI/AIAA G-043-2012e.
Dick, J. and J. Chard, “The systems engineering sandwich: Combining requirements, models and design,” INCOSE
International Symposium IS2004, July 2004.
Hull, E., K. Jackson, J. Dick, Requirements Engineering, Silver Spring, MD, USA: Springer, 2010.
Ryan, M.J., “An improved taxonomy for major needs and requirements artefacts”, INCOSE International Symposium
IS2013, June 2013.
Primary References
Hull, E., K. Jackson, J. Dick, Requirements Engineering, Silver Spring, MD, USA: Springer, 2010.
Ryan, M.J., “An improved taxonomy for major needs and requirements artefacts,” INCOSE International Symposium
IS2013, June 2013.
None.

295
Knowledge Area: System Lifecycle Models
System Lifecycle Models

Lead Authors: Kevin Forsberg, Rick Adcock, Contributing Author: Alan Faisandier
The life cycle model is one of the key concepts of systems engineering (SE). A life cycle for a system generally
consists of a series of stages regulated by a set of management decisions which confirm that the system is mature
enough to leave one stage and enter another.
Topics
theme. The KAs in turn are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
• System Life Cycle Process Drivers and Choices
• System Life Cycle Process Models: Vee
• System Life Cycle Process Models: Iterative
• Integration of Process and Product Models
• Lean Engineering
Type of Value Added Products/Services

The Generic Life Cycle Model shows just the single-step approach for proceeding through the stages of a system’s
life cycle. Adding value (as a product, a service, or both), is a shared purpose among all enterprises, whether public
or private, for profit or non-profit. Value is produced by providing and integrating the elements of a system into a
product or service according to the system description and transitioning it into productive use. These value
considerations will lead to various forms of the generic life cycle management approach in Figure 1. Some examples
are as follows (Lawson 2010):
• A manufacturing enterprise produces nuts, bolts, and lock washer products and then sells their products as value
added elements to be used by other enterprises; in turn, these enterprises integrate these products into their more
encompassing value-added system, such as an aircraft or an automobile. Their requirements will generally be
pre-specified by the customer or by industry standards.
• A wholesaling or retailing enterprise offers products to their customers. Its customers (individuals or enterprises)
acquire the products and use them as elements in their systems. The enterprise support system will likely evolve
opportunistically, as new infrastructure capabilities or demand patterns emerge.
• A commercial service enterprise such as a bank sells a variety of products as services to their customers. This
includes current accounts, savings accounts, loans, and investment management. These services add value and are
incorporated into customer systems of individuals or enterprises. The service enterprise’s support system will also
likely evolve opportunistically, as new infrastructure capabilities or demand patterns emerge.
• A governmental service enterprise provides citizens with services that vary widely, but may include services such
as health care, highways and roads, pensions, law enforcement, or defense. Where appropriate, these services
become infrastructure elements utilized in larger encompassing systems of interest to individuals and/or
enterprises. Major initiatives, such as a next-generation air traffic control system or a metropolitan-area crisis
management system (hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, tsunami, flood, fire), will be sufficiently complex enough to
follow an evolutionary development and fielding approach. At the elemental level, there will likely be
pre-specified single-pass life cycles.
• For aircraft and automotive systems, there would likely be a pre-specified multiple-pass life cycle to capitalize on
early capabilities in the first pass, but architected to add further value-adding capabilities in later passes.
• A diversified software development enterprise provides software products that meet stakeholder requirements
(needs), thus providing services to product users. It will need to be developed to have capabilities that can be
tailored to be utilized in different customers’ life-cycle approaches and also with product-line capabilities that can
be quickly and easily applied to similar customer system developments. Its business model may also include
providing the customer with system life-cycle support and evolution capabilities.
Within these examples, there are systems that remain stable over reasonably long periods of time and those that
change rapidly. The diversity represented by these examples and their processes illustrate why there is no
one-size-fits-all process that can be used to define a specific systems life cycle. Management and leadership
approaches must consider the type of systems involved, their longevity, and the need for rapid adaptation to
unforeseen changes, whether in competition, technology, leadership, or mission priorities. In turn, the management
and leadership approaches impact the type and number of life cycle models that are deployed as well as the processes
that will be used within any particular life cycle.
There are several incremental and evolutionary approaches for sequencing the life cycle stages to deal with some of
the issues raised above. The Life Cycle Models knowledge area summarizes a number of incremental and
evolutionary life cycle models, including their main strengths and weaknesses and also discusses criteria for
choosing the best-fit approach.
Categories of Life Cycle Model

The Generic System Life Cycle Model in Figure 1 does not explicitly fit all situations. A simple, precedential,
follow-on system may need only one phase in the definition stage, while a complex system may need more than two.
With build-upon systems (vs. throwaway) prototypes, a good deal of development may occur during the definition
stage. System integration, verification, and validation may follow implementation or acquisition of the system
elements. With software, particularly test-first and daily builds, integration, verification, and validation are
interwoven with element implementation. Additionally, with the upcoming Third Industrial Revolution of
three-dimensional printing and digital manufacturing (Whadcock 2012), not only initial development but also initial
production may be done during the concept stage.
Software is a flexible and malleable medium which facilitates iterative analysis, design, construction, verification,
and validation to a greater degree than is usually possible for the purely physical components of a system. Each
repetition of an iterative development model adds material (code) to the growing software base, in which the
expanded code base is tested, reworked as necessary, and demonstrated to satisfy the requirements for the baseline.
Software can be electronically bought, sold, delivered, and upgraded anywhere in the world within reach of digital
communication, making its logistics significantly different and more cost-effective than hardware. It does not wear
out and its fixes change its content and behavior, making regression testing more complex than with hardware fixes.
Its discrete nature dictates that its testing cannot count on analytic continuity as with hardware. Adding 1 to 32767 in
a 15-bit register does not produce 32768, but 0 instead, as experienced in serious situations, such as with the use of
the Patriot Missile.
There are a large number of potential life cycle process models. They fall into three major categories:
1. primarily pre-specified and sequential processes (e.g. the single-step waterfall model)
2. primarily evolutionary and concurrent processes (e.g. lean development, the agile unified process, and various
forms of the vee and spiral models)
3. primarily interpersonal and emergent processes (e.g. agile development, scrum, extreme programming (XP), the
dynamic system development method, and innovation-based processes)
The emergence of integrated, interactive hardware-software systems made pre-specified processes potentially
harmful, as the most effective human-system interfaces tended to emerge with its use, leading to further process
variations, such as soft SE (Warfield 1976, Checkland 1981) and human-system integration processes (Booher 2003,
Pew and Mavor 2007). Until recently, process standards and maturity models have tried to cover every eventuality.
They have included extensive processes for acquisition management, source selection, reviews and audits, quality
assurance, configuration management, and document management, which in many instances would become overly
bureaucratic and inefficient. This led to the introduction of more lean (Ohno 1988; Womack et al. 1990; Oppenheim
2011) and agile (Beck 1999; Anderson 2010) approaches to concurrent hardware-software-human factors approaches
such as the concurrent vee models (Forsberg 1991; Forsberg 2005) and Incremental Commitment Spiral Model (Pew
and Mavor 2007; Boehm, et. al. 2014).
In the next article on System Life Cycle Process Drivers and Choices, these variations on the theme of life cycle
models will be identified and presented.
Systems Engineering Responsibility

Regardless of the life cycle models deployed, the role of the systems engineer encompasses the entire life cycle of
the system-of-interest. Systems engineers orchestrate the development and evolution of a solution, from defining
requirements through operation and ultimately until system retirement. They ensure that domain experts are properly
involved, all advantageous opportunities are pursued, and all significant risks are identified and, when possible,
mitigated. The systems engineer works closely with the project manager in tailoring the generic life cycle, including
key decision gates, to meet the needs of their specific project.
Systems engineering tasks are usually concentrated at the beginning of the life cycle; however, both commercial and
government organizations recognize the need for SE throughout the system’s life cycle. Often this ongoing effort is
to modify or change a system, product or service after it enters production or is placed in operation. Consequently,
SE is an important part of all life cycle stages. During the production, support, and utilization (PSU) stages, for
example, SE executes performance analysis, interface monitoring, failure analysis, logistics analysis, tracking, and
analysis of proposed changes. All these activities are essential to ongoing support of the system. Maintaining the
requirements and design within a model based systems engineering (MBSE) tool enables configuration management
and analysis throughout the SOI life cycle.
All project managers must ensure that the business aspect (cost, schedule, and value) and the technical aspect of the
project cycle remain synchronized. Often, the technical aspect drives the project. It is the systems engineers’
responsibility to ensure that the technical solutions that are being considered are consistent with the cost and
schedule objectives. This can require working with the users and customers to revise objectives to fit within the
business bounds. These issues also drive the need for decision gates to be appropriately spaced throughout the
project cycle. Although the nature of these decision gates will vary by the major categories above, each will involve
in-process validation between the developers and the end users. In-process validation asks the question: “Will what
we are planning or creating satisfy the stakeholders’ needs?” In-process validation begins at the initialization of the
project during user needs discovery and continues through daily activities, formal decision gate reviews, final
product or solution delivery, operations, and ultimately to system closeout and disposal.
References
Works Cited
Anderson, D. 2010. Kanban. Sequim, WA: Blue Hole Press.
Beck, K. 1999. Extreme Programming Explained. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
Boehm, B., J. Lane, S. Koolmanojwong, and R. Turner. 2014. The Incremental Commitment Spiral Model:
Principles and Practices for Successful Systems and Software. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Addison-Wesley.
Booher, H. (ed.) 2003. Handbook of Human Systems Integration. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Cusumano, M., and D. Yoffie. 1998. Competing on Internet Time, New York, NY, USA: The Free Press.
Forsberg, K. and H. Mooz. 1991. "The Relationship of System Engineering to the Project Cycle," Proceedings of
INCOSE, October 1991.
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, and H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley &
Sons.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015.Systems and software engineering - system life cycle processes.Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers.ISO/IEC 15288:2015.
Ohno, T. 1988. Toyota Production System. New York, NY: Productivity Press.
Oppenheim, B. 2011. Lean for Systems Engineering. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Pew, R. and A. Mavor (eds.). 2007. Human-System Integration in The System Development Process: A New Look.
Warfield, J. 1976. Systems Engineering. Washington, DC, USA: US Department of Commerce (DoC).
Whadcock, I. 2012. “A third industrial revolution.” The Economist. April 21, 2012.
Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones, and D. Roos 1990. The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production.
New York, NY, USA: Rawson Associates.
Primary References
series in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management, 3rd Ed. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley &
Sons.
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook, version 4. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04.
Pew, R. and A. Mavor (Eds.). 2007. Human-System Integration in The System Development Process: A New Look.
Chrissis, M., M. Konrad, and S. Shrum. 2003. CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement.
New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
Larman, C. and B. Vodde. 2009. Scaling Lean and Agile Development. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
The following three books are not referenced in the SEBoK text, nor are they systems engineering "texts"; however,
they contain important systems engineering lessons, and readers of this SEBOK are encouraged to read them.
Kinder, G. 1998. Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea. New York, NY, USA: Grove Press.
This is an excellent book that follows an idea from inception to its ultimately successful implementation. Although
systems engineering is not discussed, it is clearly illustrated in the whole process from early project definition to
alternate concept development to phased exploration and “thought experiments” to addressing challenges along the
way. It also shows the problem of not anticipating critical problems outside the usual project and engineering scope.
It took about five years to locate and recover the 24 tons of gold bars and coins from the sunken ship in the
2,500-meter-deep ocean, but it took ten years to win the legal battle with the lawyers representing insurance
companies who claimed ownership based on 130-year-old policies they issued to the gold owners in 1857.
McCullough, D. 1977. The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal (1870 – 1914).
New York, NY, USA: Simon & Schuster.
Although “systems engineering” is not mentioned, this book highlights many systems engineering issues and
illustrates the need for SE as a discipline. The book also illustrates the danger of applying a previously successful
concept (the sea level canal used in Suez a decade earlier) in a similar but different situation. Ferdinand de Lesseps
led both the Suez and Panama projects. It illustrates the danger of lacking a fact-based project cycle and meaningful
decision gates throughout the project cycle. It also highlights the danger of providing project status without visibility.
After five years into the ten-year project investors were told the project was more than 50 percent complete when in
fact only 10 percent of the work was complete. The second round of development under Stevens in 1904 focused on
“moving dirt” rather than digging a canal, a systems engineering concept key to the completion of the canal. The Path
Between the Seas won the National Book Award for history (1978), the Francis Parkman Prize (1978), the Samuel
Eliot Morison Award (1978), and the Cornelius Ryan Award (1977).
Shackleton, Sir E.H. 2008. (Originally published in by William Heinemann, London, 1919). South: The
Last Antarctic Expedition of Shackleton and the Endurance. Guilford, CT, USA: Lyons Press.
This is the amazing story of the last Antarctic expedition of Shackleton and the Endurance in 1914 to 1917. The
systems engineering lesson is the continuous, daily risk assessment by the captain, expedition leader, and crew as
they lay trapped in the arctic ice for 18 months. All 28 crew members survived.
Relevant Videos
• NASA's Approach to Systems Engineering- Space Systems Engineering 101 w/ NASA [1]

References
[1] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=jxT7_NPFjkA
System Lifecycle Process Drivers and Choices

Lead Authors: Kevin Forsberg, Rick Adcock
As discussed in the Generic Life Cycle Model article, there are many organizational factors that can impact which
life cycle processes are appropriate for a specific system. Additionally, technical factors will also influence the types
of life cycle models appropriate for a given system. For example, system requirements can either be predetermined
or they can be changing, depending on the scope and nature of the development for a system. These considerations
lead to different life cycle model selections. This article discusses different technical factors which can be considered
when selecting a life cycle process model and provides examples, guidance and tools from the literature to support
life cycle model selection. The life cycle model selected can impact all other aspects of system design and
development. (See the knowledge areas in Part 3 for a description of how the life cycle can impact systems
engineering (SE) processes.)
Fixed-Requirements and Evolutionary Development Processes

Aside from the traditional, pre-specified, sequential, single-step development process (identified as Fixed
Requirements), there are several models of evolutionary development processes; however, there is no
one-size-fits-all approach that is best for all situations. For rapid-fielding situations, an easiest-first, prototyping
approach may be most appropriate. For enduring systems, an easiest-first approach may produce an unscalable
system, in which the architecture is incapable of achieving high levels of performance, safety, or security. In general,
system evolution now requires much higher sustained levels of SE effort, earlier and continuous integration and
testing, proactive approaches to address sources of system change, greater levels of concurrent engineering, and
achievement reviews based on evidence of feasibility versus plans and system descriptions.
Evolutionary development processes or methods have been in use since the 1960s (and perhaps earlier). They allow
a project to provide an initial capability followed by successive deliveries to reach the desired system-of-interest
(SoI). This practice is particularly valuable in cases in which
• rapid exploration and implementation of part of the system is desired;
• requirements are unclear from the beginning, or are rapidly changing;
• funding is constrained;
• the customer wishes to hold the SoI open to the possibility of inserting new technology when it becomes mature;
and
• experimentation is required to develop successive versions.
In evolutionary development a capability of the product is developed in an increment of time. Each cycle of the
increment subsumes the system elements of the previous increment and adds new capabilities to the evolving
product to create an expanded version of the product in development. This evolutionary development process, that
uses increments, can provide a number of advantages, including
• continuous integration, verification, and validation of the evolving product;
• frequent demonstrations of progress;
• early detection of defects;
• early warning of process problems; and
• systematic incorporation of the inevitable rework that may occur.
Primary Models of Incremental and Evolutionary Development

The primary models of incremental and evolutionary development focus on different competitive and technical
challenges. The time phasing of each model is shown in Figure 1 below in terms of the increment (1, 2, 3, …)
content with respect to the definition (Df), development (Dv), and production, support, and utilization (PSU) stages
in Figure 1 (A Generic System Life Cycle Model) from the Life Cycle Models article.
Figure 1. Primary Models of Incremental and Evolutionary Development.

(SEBoK Original)
The Figure 1 notations (Df1..N and Dv1..N) indicate that their initial stages produce specifications not just for the
first increment, but for the full set of increments. These are assumed to remain stable for the pre-specified sequential
model but are expected to involve changes for the evolutionary concurrent model. The latter’s notation ( Dv1 and
Df2R) in the same time frame, PSU1, Dv2 and Df3R in the same time frame, etc.) indicates that the plans and
specifications for the next increment are being re-baselined by a systems engineering team concurrently with the
development of the current increment and the PSU of the previous increment. This offloads the work of handling the
change traffic from the development team and significantly improves its chances of finishing the current increment
on budget and schedule.
In order to select an appropriate life cycle model, it is important to first gain an understanding of the main archetypes
and where they are best used. Table 1 summarizes each of the primary models of single-step, incremental and
evolutionary development in terms of examples, strengths, and weaknesses, followed by explanatory notes.
Table 1. Primary Models of Incremental and Evolutionary Development (Boehm, et. al.
2014, page 73).
Model Examples Pros Cons
Pre-specified Simple manufactured products: Efficient, easy to verify Difficulties with rapid change, emerging
Single-step Nuts, bolts, simple sensors requirements (complex sensors,
human-intensive systems)
Pre-specified Vehicle platform plus value-adding Early initial capability, scalability when Emergent requirements or rapid change,
Multi-step pre-planned product improvements stable architecture breakers
(PPPIs)
Evolutionary Small: Agile Adaptability to change, smaller Easiest-first, late, costly fixes, systems
Sequential Larger: Rapid fielding human-intensive systems engineering time gaps, slow for large
systems
Evolutionary Stable development, Maturing Mature technology upgrades Emergent requirements or rapid change,
Opportunistic technology SysE time gaps
Evolutionary Rapid, emergent development, Emergent requirements or rapid change, Overkill on small or highly stable systems
Concurrent systems of systems stable development increments, SysE
continuity
The Pre-specified Single-step and Pre-specified Multi-step models from Table 1 are not evolutionary. Pre-specified
multi-step models split the development in order to field an early initial operational capability, followed by several
pre-planned product improvements (P3Is). An alternate version splits up the work but does not field the intermediate
increments. When requirements are well understood and stable, the pre-specified models enable a strong, predictable
process. When requirements are emergent and/or rapidly changing, they often require expensive rework if they lead
to undoing architectural commitments.
The Evolutionary Sequential model involves an approach in which the initial operational capability for the system is
rapidly developed and is upgraded based on operational experience. Pure agile software development fits this model.
If something does not turn out as expected and needs to be changed, it will be fixed in thirty days at the time of its
next release. Rapid fielding also fits this model for larger or hardware-software systems. Its major strength is to
enable quick-response capabilities in the field. For pure agile, the model can fall prey to an easiest-first set of
architectural commitments which break when, for example, system developers try to scale up the workload by a
factor of ten or to add security as a new feature in a later increment. For rapid fielding, using this model may prove
expensive when the quick mash-ups require extensive rework to fix incompatibilities or to accommodate off-nominal
usage scenarios, but the rapid results may be worth it.
The Evolutionary Opportunistic model can be adopted in cases that involve deferring the next increment until: a
sufficiently attractive opportunity presents itself, the desired new technology is mature enough to be added, or until
other enablers such as scarce components or key personnel become available. It is also appropriate for synchronizing
upgrades of multiple commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products. It may be expensive to keep the SE and
development teams together while waiting for the enablers, but again, it may be worth it.
The Evolutionary Concurrent model involves a team of systems engineers concurrently handling the change traffic
and re-baselining the plans and specifications for the next increment, in order to keep the current increment
development stabilized. An example and discussion are provided in Table 2, below.
Incremental and Evolutionary Development Decision Table

The Table 2 provides some criteria for deciding which of the processes associated with the primary classes of
incremental and evolutionary development models to use.
Table 2. Incremental and Evolutionary Development Decision Table. (Boehm, et. al., 2014,
page 74). Reprinted with permission.
Model Stable, pre-specifiable OK to wait for full system Need to wait for Need to wait for
requirements? to be developed? next-increment priorities? next-increment enablers*?
Pre-specified Yes Yes

Single-step
Pre-specified Yes No
Multi-step
Evolutionary No No Yes
Sequential
Evolutionary No No No Yes
Opportunistic
Evolutionary No No No No
Concurrent
*Example enablers: Technology maturity; External-system capabilities; Needed resources; New opportunities
The Pre-specified Single-step process exemplified by the traditional waterfall or sequential Vee model is appropriate
if the product’s requirements are pre-specifiable and have a low probability of significant change and if there is no
value or chance to deliver a partial product capability. A good example of this would be the hardware for an earth
resources monitoring satellite that would be infeasible to modify after it goes into orbit.
The Pre-specified Multi-step process splits up the development in order to field an early initial operational capability
and several P3I's. It is best if the product’s full capabilities can be specified in advance and are at a low probability of
significant change. This is useful in cases when waiting for the full system to be developed incurs a loss of important
and deliverable incremental mission capabilities. A good example of this would be a well-understood and
well-prioritized sequence of software upgrades for the on-board earth resources monitoring satellite.
The Evolutionary Sequential process develops an initial operational capability and upgrades it based on operational
experience, as exemplified by agile methods. It is most needed in cases when there is a need to obtain operational
feedback on an initial capability before defining and developing the next increment’s content. A good example of
this would be the software upgrades suggested by experiences with the satellite’s payload, such as what kind of
multi-spectral data collection and analysis capabilities are best for what kind of agriculture under what weather
conditions.
The Evolutionary Opportunistic process defers the next increment until its new capabilities are available and mature
enough to be added. It is best used when the increment does not need to wait for operational feedback, but it may
need to wait for next-increment enablers such as technology maturity, external system capabilities, needed resources,
or new value-adding opportunities. A good example of this would be the need to wait for agent-based satellite
anomaly trend analysis and mission-adaptation software to become predictably stable before incorporating it into a
scheduled increment.
The Evolutionary Concurrent process, as realized in the incremental commitment spiral model (Pew and Mavor
2007; Boehm, et.al., 2014, page 75) and shown in Figure 2, has a continuing team of systems engineers handling the
change traffic and re-baselining the plans and specifications for the next increment, while also keeping a
development team stabilized for on-time, high-assurance delivery of the current increment and employing a
concurrent verification and validation (V&V) team to perform continuous defect detection to enable even higher
assurance levels. A good example of this would be the satellite’s ground-based mission control and data handling
software’s next-increment re-baselining to adapt to new COTS releases and continuing user requests for data
processing upgrades.
The satellite example illustrates the various ways in which the complex systems of the future, different parts of the
system, and its software may evolve in a number of ways, once again affirming that there is no one-size-fits-all
process for software evolution. However, Table 2 can be quite helpful in determining which processes are the best
fits for evolving each part of the system. Additionally, the three-team model in Figure 2 provides a way for projects
to develop the challenging software-intensive systems of the future that will need both adaptability to rapid change
and high levels of assurance.
Figure 2. Evolutionary-Concurrent Rapid Change Handling and High Assurance (Pew and Mavor 2007, Figure 2-6). Reprinted with
permission from the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. All other rights are reserved
by the copyright owner.
References
Works Cited
Boehm, B. 2006. “Some Future Trends and Implications for Systems and Software Engineering Processes.” Systems
Engineering. 9(1): 1-19.
Boehm, B. and J. Lane. 2007. “Using the Incremental Commitment Model to Integrate System Acquisition, Systems
Engineering, and Software Engineering.” CrossTalk. October 2007: 4-9.
Boehm, B. and J. Lane. 2010. DoD Systems Engineering and Management Implications for Evolutionary Acquisition
of Major Defense Systems. SERC RT-5 report, March 2010. USC-CSSE-2010-500.
Boehm, B., J. Lane, S. Koolmanojwong, and R. Turner. 2014. The Incremental Commitment Spiral Model:
Principles and Practices for Successful Systems and Software. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Addison-Wesley.
Cusumano, M. and D. Yoffee. 1998. Competing on Internet Time: Lessons from Netscape and Its Battle with
Microsoft. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.
Pew, R. and A. Mavor (eds.). 2007. Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look.
Washington DC, USA: The National Academies Press.
Primary References
Pew, R., and A. Mavor (eds.). 2007. Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look.
None.

System Lifecycle Process Models: Vee

Lead Authors: Dick Fairley, Kevin Forsberg, Contributing Author: Ray Madachy, Phyllis Marbach
There are a large number of life cycle process models. As discussed in the System Life Cycle Process Drivers and
Choices article, those models described fall into three major categories: (1) primarily pre-specified single-step or
multistep, also known as traditional or sequential processes; (2) evolutionary sequential (or the Vee Model) and (3)
evolutionary opportunistic and evolutionary concurrent (or incremental agile). The concurrent processes are known
by many names: the agile unified process (formerly the Rational Unified Process), the spiral models) and include
some that are primarily interpersonal and unconstrained processes (e.g., agile development, Scrum, extreme
programming (XP), the dynamic system development method, and innovation-based processes).
This article specifically focuses on the Vee Model as the primary example of pre-specified and sequential processes.
In this discussion, it is important to note that the Vee model, and variations of the Vee model, all address the same
basic set of systems engineering (SE) activities. The key difference between these models is the way in which they
group and represent the aforementioned SE activities.
General implications of using the Vee model for system design and development are discussed below; for a more
specific understanding of how this life cycle model impacts systems engineering activities, please see the other
knowledge areas (KAs) in Part 3.
A Primarily Pre-specified and Sequential Process Model: The Vee Model

The sequential version of the Vee Model is shown in Figure 1. Its core involves a sequential progression of plans,
specifications, and products that are baselined and put under configuration management. The vertical, two-headed
arrow enables projects to perform concurrent opportunity and risk analyses, as well as continuous in-process
validation. The Vee Model encompasses the first two life cycle stages listed in the "Generic Life Cycle Stages their
purposes, and decision gate options" table of the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: concept, and
development (INCOSE 2015).
Figure 1. Left Side of the Sequential Vee Model (INCOSE 2015, adapted from Forsberg, Mooz, and Cotterman 2005,
Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
The Vee Model endorses the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE 2015) definition of life cycle
stages and their purposes or activities, as shown in Figure 2 below. Replace Figure 2 with the updated figure that
removes the first Exploratory stage.
Figure 2. An Example of Stages, Their Purposes and Major Decision Gates. (SEBoK Original)
A more detailed version of the Vee diagram incorporates life cycle activities into the more generic Vee model. This
Vee diagram, developed at the U.S. Defense Acquisition University (DAU), can be seen in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3. The Vee Activity Diagram (Prosnik 2010). Released by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
Application of the Vee Model

Lawson (Lawson 2010) elaborates on the activities in each life cycle stage and notes that it is useful to consider the
structure of a generic life cycle stage model for any type of system-of-interest (SoI) as portrayed in Figure 4. This
(T) model indicates that one or more definition stages precede a production stage(s) where the implementation
(acquisition, provisioning, or development) of two or more system elements has been accomplished.
Figure 4. Generic (T) Stage Structure of System Life Cycle Models (Lawson 2010). Reprinted with permission of
Harold Lawson. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Figure 5 shows the generic life cycle stages for a variety of stakeholders, from a standards organization (ISO/IEC) to
commercial and government organizations. Although these stages differ in detail, they all have a similar sequential
format that emphasizes the core activities as noted in Table 1 (concept, production, and utilization/retirement).
Figure 5. Comparisons of Life Cycle Models (Forsberg, Mooz, and Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with
permission of John Wiley & Sons. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
It is important to note that many of the activities throughout the life cycle are iterated. This is an example of
recursion as discussed in the Part 3 Introduction.
Fundamentals of Life Cycle Stages and Program Management Phase

For this discussion, it is important to note that:
• The term stage refers to the different states of a system during its life cycle; some stages may overlap in time,
such as the utilization stage and the support stage. The term “stage” is used in ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288.
• The term phase refers to the different steps of the program that support and manage the life of the system; the
phases usually do not overlap. The term “phase” is used in many well-established models as an equivalent to the
term “stage.”
Program management employs phases, milestones, and decision gates which are used to assess the evolution of a
system through its various stages. The stages contain the activities performed to achieve goals and serve to control
and manage the sequence of stages and the transitions between each stage. For each project, it is essential to define
and publish the terms and related definitions used on respective projects to minimize confusion.
A typical program is composed of the following phases:
• The feasibility or study phase consists of studying the feasibility of alternative concepts to reach a second
decision gate before initiating the execution stage. During the feasibility phase, stakeholders' requirements and
system requirements are identified, viable solutions are identified and studied, and virtual prototypes (glossary)
can be implemented. During this phase, the decision to move forward is based on:
• whether a concept is feasible and is considered able to counter an identified threat or exploit an opportunity;
• whether a concept is sufficiently mature to warrant continued development of a new product or line of
products; and
• whether to approve a proposal generated in response to a request for proposal.
• The execution phase includes activities related to four stages of the system life cycle: development, production,
utilization, and support. Typically, there are two decision gates and two milestones associated with execution
activities. The first milestone provides the opportunity for management to review the plans for execution before
giving the go-ahead. The second milestone provides the opportunity to review progress before the decision is
made to initiate production. The decision gates during execution can be used to determine whether to produce the
developed SoI and whether to improve it or retire it.
These program management views apply not only to the SoI, but also to its elements and structure.
Life Cycle Stages

Variations of the Vee model deal with the same general stages of a life cycle:
• New projects typically begin with an exploratory research phase which generally includes the activities of concept
definition, specifically the topics of business or mission analysis and the understanding of stakeholder needs and
requirements. These mature as the project goes from the exploratory stage to the concept stage to the development
stage.
• The production phase includes the activities of system definition and system realization, as well as the
development of the system requirements (glossary) and architecture (glossary) through verification and
validation.
• The utilization phase includes the activities of system deployment and system operation.
• The support phase includes the activities of system maintenance, logistics, and product and service life
management, which may include activities such as service life extension or capability updates, upgrades, and
modernization.
• The retirement phase includes the activities of disposal and retirement, though in some models, activities such as
service life extension or capability updates, upgrades, and modernization are grouped into the "retirement" phase.
Additional information on each of these stages can be found in the sections below (see links to additional Part 3
articles above for further detail). It is important to note that these life cycle stages, and the activities in each stage,
are supported by a set of systems engineering management processes.
Concept Stage
User requirements analysis and agreement is part of the concept stage and is critical to the development of successful
systems. Without proper understanding of the user needs, any system runs the risk of being built to solve the wrong
problems. The first step in the concept stage is to define the user (and stakeholder) requirements and constraints. A
key part of this process is to establish the feasibility of meeting the user requirements, including technology
readiness assessment. As with many SE activities this is often done iteratively, and stakeholder needs and
requirements are revisited as new information becomes available.
A recent study by the National Research Council (National Research Council 2008) focused on reducing the
development time for US Air Force projects. The report notes that, “simply stated, systems engineering is the
translation of a user’s needs into a definition of a system and its architecture through an iterative process that results
in an effective system design.” The iterative involvement with stakeholders is critical to the project success.
Except for the first and last decision gates of a project, the gates are performed simultaneously. See Figure 6 below.
Figure 6. Scheduling the Development Phases. (SEBoK Original)
During the concept stage, alternate concepts are created to determine the best approach to meet stakeholder needs.
By envisioning alternatives and creating models, including appropriate prototypes, stakeholder needs will be
clarified and the driving issues highlighted. This may lead to an incremental or evolutionary approach to system
development. Several different concepts may be explored in parallel.
Development Stage
The selected concept(s) identified in the concept stage are elaborated in detail down to the lowest level to produce
the solution that meets the stakeholder requirements. Throughout this stage, it is vital to continue with user
involvement through in-process validation (the upward arrow on the Vee models). On hardware, this is done with
frequent program reviews and a customer resident representative(s) (if appropriate). In agile development, the
practice is to have the customer representative integrated into the development team.
Production Stage
The production stage is where the SoI is built or manufactured. Product modifications may be required to resolve
production problems, to reduce production costs, or to enhance product or SoI capabilities. Any of these
modifications may influence system requirements and may require system re-qualification, re-verification, or
re-validation. All such changes require SE assessment before changes are approved.
Utilization Stage
A significant aspect of product life cycle management is the provisioning of supporting systems which are vital in
sustaining operation of the product. While the supplied product or service may be seen as the narrow
system-of-interest (NSOI) for an acquirer, the acquirer also must incorporate the supporting systems into a wider
system-of-interest (WSOI). These supporting systems should be seen as system assets that, when needed, are
activated in response to a situation that has emerged in respect to the operation of the NSOI. The collective name for
the set of supporting systems is the integrated logistics support (ILS) system.
It is vital to have a holistic view when defining, producing, and operating system products and services. In Figure 7,
the relationship between system design and development and the ILS requirements is portrayed.
Figure 7. Relating ILS to the System Life Cycle (Eichmueller and Foreman 2009). Reprinted with
permission of of ASD/AIA S3000L Steering Committee. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
The requirements for reliability, resulting in the need of maintainability and testability, are driving factors.
Support Stage
In the support stage, the SoI is provided services that enable continued operation. Modifications may be proposed to
resolve supportability problems, to reduce operational costs, or to extend the life of a system. These changes require
SE assessment to avoid loss of system capabilities while under operation. The corresponding technical process is the
maintenance process.
Retirement Stage
In the retirement stage, the SoI and its related services are removed from operation. SE activities in this stage are
primarily focused on ensuring that disposal requirements are satisfied. In fact, planning for disposal is part of the
system definition during the concept stage. Experiences in the 20th century repeatedly demonstrated the
consequences when system retirement and disposal was not considered from the outset. Early in the 21st century,
many countries have changed their laws to hold the creator of a SoI accountable for proper end-of-life disposal of the
system.
Life Cycle Reviews

To control the progress of a project, different types of reviews are planned. The most commonly used are listed as
follows, although the names are not universal:
• The system requirements review (SRR) is planned to verify and validate the set of system requirements before
starting the detailed design activities.
• The preliminary design review (PDR) is planned to verify and validate the set of system requirements, the design
artifacts, and justification elements at the end of the first engineering loop (also known as the "design-to" gate).
• The critical design review (CDR) is planned to verify and validate the set of system requirements, the design
artifacts, and justification elements at the end of the last engineering loop (the “build-to” and “code-to” designs are
released after this review).
• The integration, verification, and validation reviews are planned as the components are assembled into higher
level subsystems and elements. A sequence of reviews is held to ensure that everything integrates properly and
that there is objective evidence that all requirements have been met. There should also be an in-process validation
that the system, as it is evolving, will meet the stakeholders’ requirements (see Figure 7).
• The final validation review is carried out at the end of the integration phase.
• Other management related reviews can be planned and conducted in order to control the correct progress of work,
based on the type of system and the associated risks.
Figure 8. Right Side of the Vee Model (Forsberg, Mooz, and Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with permission
of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
References
Works Cited
Eichmueller, P. and B. Foreman. 2010. S3000LTM. Brussels, Belgium: Aerospace and Defence Industries
Association of Europe (ASD)/Aerospace Industries Association (AIA).
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, and H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: J.
Wiley & Sons.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
UK.
Primary References
Beedle, M., et al. 2009. "The Agile Manifesto: Principles behind the Agile Manifesto". in The Agile Manifesto
[database online]. Accessed December 04 2014 at www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
Boehm, B. and R. Turner. 2004. Balancing Agility and Discipline. New York, NY, USA: Addison-Wesley.
Fairley, R. 2009. Managing and Leading Software Projects. New York, NY, USA: J. Wiley & Sons.
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, and H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management. 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: J.
Wiley & Sons.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Lawson, H. 2010. A Journey Through the Systems Landscape. Kings College, UK: College Publications.
Pew, R., and A. Mavor (eds.) 2007. Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look.
Royce, W.E. 1998. Software Project Management: A Unified Framework. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
Anderson, D. 2010. Kanban. Sequim, WA, USA: Blue Hole Press.
Baldwin, C. and K. Clark. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Beck, K. 1999. Extreme Programming Explained. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
[database online]. Accessed 2010. Available at: www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
Biffl, S., A. Aurum, B. Boehm, H. Erdogmus, and P. Gruenbacher (eds.). 2005. Value-Based Software Engineering.
New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Boehm, B. 1988. “A Spiral Model of Software Development.” IEEE Computer 21(5): 61-72.
Boehm, B., A. Egyed, J. Kwan, D. Port, A. Shah, and R. Madachy. 1998. “Using the WinWin Spiral Model: A Case
Study.” IEEE Computer. 31(7): 33-44.
Boehm, B., R. Turner, J. Lane, S. Koolmanojwong. 2014 (in press). Embracing the Spiral Model: Creating
Successful Systems with the Incremental Commitment Spiral Model. Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.
Castellano, D.R. 2004. “Top Five Quality Software Projects.” CrossTalk. 17(7) (July 2004): 4-19. Available at: http:/
/www.crosstalkonline.org/storage/issue-archives/2004/200407/200407-0-Issue.pdf
Crosson, S. and B. Boehm. 2009. “Adjusting Software Life cycle Anchorpoints: Lessons Learned in a System of
Systems Context.” Proceedings of the Systems and Software Technology Conference, 20-23 April 2009, Salt Lake
City, UT, USA.
Dingsoyr, T., T. Dyba. and N. Moe (eds.). 2010. "Agile Software Development: Current Research and Future
Directions.” Chapter in B. Boehm, J. Lane, S. Koolmanjwong, and R. Turner, Architected Agile Solutions for
Software-Reliant Systems. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Dorner, D. 1996. The Logic of Failure. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.
Forsberg, K. 1995. "'If I Could Do That, Then I Could…' System Engineering in a Research and Development
Environment.” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
International Symposium. 22-26 July 1995. St. Louis, MO, USA.
Forsberg, K. 2010. “Projects Don’t Begin With Requirements.” Proceedings of the IEEE Systems Conference, 5-8
April 2010, San Diego, CA, USA.
Gilb, T. 2005. Competitive Engineering. Maryland Heights, MO, USA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
Goldratt, E. 1984. The Goal. Great Barrington, MA, USA: North River Press.
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Holland, J. 1998. Emergence. New York, NY, USA: Perseus Books.
24748-1:2010.
International Organisation for Standardisation / International Electrotechnical Commissions / Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
ISO/IEC. 2003. Systems Engineering — A Guide for The Application of ISO/IEC 15288 System Life Cycle
Processes. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC 19760:2003 (E).
Jarzombek, J. 2003. “Top Five Quality Software Projects.” CrossTalk. 16(7) (July 2003): 4-19. Available at: http:/ /
www.crosstalkonline.org/storage/issue-archives/2003/200307/200307-0-Issue.pdf.
Kruchten, P. 1999. The Rational Unified Process. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
Landis, T. R. 2010. Lockheed Blackbird Family (A-12, YF-12, D-21/M-21 & SR-71). North Branch, MN, USA:
Specialty Press.
Madachy, R. 2008. Software Process Dynamics. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Maranzano, J.F., S.A. Rozsypal, G.H. Zimmerman, G.W. Warnken, P.E. Wirth, D.W. Weiss. 2005. “Architecture
Reviews: Practice and Experience.” IEEE Software. 22(2): 34-43.
National Research Council of the National Academies (USA). 2008. Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase Systems
Engineering. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press.
Osterweil, L. 1987. “Software Processes are Software Too.” Proceedings of the SEFM 2011: 9th International
Conference on Software Engineering. Monterey, CA, USA.
Poppendeick, M. and T. Poppendeick. 2003. Lean Software Development: an Agile Toolkit. New York, NY, USA:
Addison Wesley.
Rechtin, E. 1991. System Architecting: Creating and Building Complex Systems. Upper Saddle River, NY, USA:
Prentice-Hall.
Rechtin, E., and M. Maier. 1997. The Art of System Architecting. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Schwaber, K. and M. Beedle. 2002. Agile Software Development with Scrum. Upper Saddle River, NY, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Spruill, N. 2002. “Top Five Quality Software Projects.” CrossTalk. 15(1) (January 2002): 4-19. Available at: http:/ /
Stauder, T. 2005. “Top Five Department of Defense Program Awards.” CrossTalk. 18(9) (September 2005): 4-13.
Available at http://www.crosstalkonline.org/storage/issue-archives/2005/200509/200509-0-Issue.pdf.
Warfield, J. 1976. Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Womack, J. and D. Jones. 1996. Lean Thinking. New York, NY, USA: Simon and Schuster.
Relevant Videos
• Basic Introduction of Systems Engineering (V-method) [Part 1 of 2 [1]]
• Basic Introduction to Systems Engineering (V-Method) Part 2 of 2 [2]

References
[1] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=9b4GYQfUuGE& t=7s
[2] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=q8vJogfrAnE
System Lifecycle Process Models: Incremental

Contributing Author: Kevin Forsberg
There are a large number of life cycle process models. As discussed in the System Life Cycle Process Drivers and
Choices article pre-specified single-step is like traditional or waterfall with fixed requirements; pre-specified,
multi-step will develop an early initial operational capability and then follow that by several pre-planned product
improvement. The next 3 are incremental and evolutionary and range from rapid fielding to maturing technology to
emergent development. We have grouped these models into three major categories: (1) primarily pre-specified
single-step or multistep, also known as traditional or sequential processes; (2) evolutionary sequential (or the Vee
model); and (3) evolutionary opportunistic and evolutionary concurrent (or incremental agile). The concurrent
processes are known by many names: the agile unified process (formerly the Rational Unified Process), the spiral
models and include some that are primarily interpersonal and unconstrained processes (e.g., agile development,
Scrum, extreme programming (XP), dynamic system development methods, and innovation-based processes).
This article discusses evolutionary opportunistic and evolutionary concurrent, the third category listed above. While
there are a number of different models describing the project environment, the spiral model and the Vee Model have
become the dominant approaches to visualizing the development process. Both the Vee and the spiral are useful
models that emphasize different aspects of a system life cycle.
General implications of using incremental models for system design and development are discussed below. For a
more specific understanding of how this life cycle model impacts systems engineering activities, please see the other
knowledge areas (KAs) in Part 3. This article is focused on the use of incremental life cycle process models in
systems engineering. (See Systems Engineering and Software Engineering in Part 6 for more information on life
cycle implications in software engineering.)
Evolutionary and Incremental Development
Overview of the Evolutionary Approach

A specific methodology called evolutionary development is common in research and development (R&D)
environments in both the government and commercial sector. Figure 1 illustrates this approach, which was used in
the evolution of the high temperature tiles for the NASA Space Shuttle (Forsberg 1995). In the evolutionary
approach, the end state of each phase of development is unknown, though the goal is for each phase to result in some
sort of useful product.
Figure 1. Evolutionary Generic Model (Forsberg, Mooz, Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All other rights
The real-world development environment is complex and difficult to map because many different project cycles are
underway simultaneously.
Overview of the Incremental Approach

Incremental development methods have been in use since the 1960s (and perhaps earlier). They allow a project to
provide an initial capability followed by successive deliveries to reach the desired system-of-interest (SoI).
The incremental approach, shown in Figure 2, is used when:
• rapid exploration and implementation of part of the system is desired;
• the requirements are unclear from the beginning;
• funding is constrained;
• the customer wishes to hold the SoI open to the possibility of inserting new technology at a later time; and/or
• experimentation is required to develop successive prototype (glossary) versions.
The attributes that distinguish incremental from the single-pass, plan-driven approach are velocity and adaptability.
Figure 2. Incremental Development with

Multiple Deliveries (Forsberg, Mooz, and
Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with permission of
John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights are
Incremental development may also be “plan-driven” in nature if the requirements are known early on in the life
cycle. The development of the functionality is performed incrementally to allow for insertion of the latest technology
or for potential changes in needs or requirements. Incremental development also imposes constraints. The example
shown in Figure 3 uses the increments to develop high-risk subsystems (or components) early, but the system cannot
function until all increments are complete.
Figure 3. Incremental Development with a Single Delivery (Forsberg, Mooz, Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with permission of
John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Advise this figure and section be moved to the Case Study section of the SEBoK.--- Figure 4 shows the applied
research era for the development of the space shuttle Orbiter and illustrates multi-levels of simultaneous
development, trade-studies, and ultimately, implementation.
Figure 4. Evolution of Components and Orbiter Subsystems (including space shuttle tiles) During Creation of a Large
"Single-Pass" Project (Forsberg 1995). Reprinted with permission of Kevin Forsberg. All other rights are reserved by the copyright
owner.
Advise this information below be moved to Part 6, unless it is redundant or out of date.---
Iterative Software Development Process Models

Software is a flexible and malleable medium which facilitates iterative analysis, design, construction, verification,
and validation to a greater degree than is usually possible for the purely physical components of a system. Each
repetition of an iterative development model adds material (code) to the growing software base; the expanded code
base is tested, reworked as necessary, and demonstrated to satisfy the requirements for the baseline.
Process models for software development support iterative development on cycles of various lengths. Table 1 lists
three iterative software development models which are presented in more detail below, as well as the aspects of
software development that are emphasized by those models.
Table 1. Primary Emphases of Three Iterative Software Development Models.

Iterative Model Emphasis
Incremental-build Iterative implementation-verification-validations-demonstration cycles
Spiral Iterative risk-based analysis of alternative approaches and evaluation of outcomes
Agile Iterative evolution of requirements and code
Please note that the information below is focused specifically on the utilization of different life cycle models for
software systems. In order to better understand the interactions between software engineering (SwE) and systems
engineering (SE), please see the Systems Engineering and Software Engineering KA in Part 6.
Overview of Iterative-Development Process Models

Developing and modifying software involves creative processes that are subject to many external and changeable
forces. Long experience has shown that it is impossible to “get it right” the first time, and that iterative development
processes are preferable to linear, sequential development process models, such as the well-known Waterfall model.
In iterative development, each cycle of the iteration subsumes the software of the previous iteration and adds new
capabilities to the evolving product to create an expanded version of the software. Iterative development processes
provide the following advantages:
• Continuous integration, verification, and validation of the evolving product;
• Frequent demonstrations of progress;
• Early detection of defects;
• Early warning of process problems;
• Systematic incorporation of the inevitable rework that occurs in software development; and
• Early delivery of subset capabilities (if desired).
Iterative development takes many forms in SwE, including the following:
• An incremental-build process, which is used to produce periodic (typically weekly) builds of increasing product
capabilities;
• Agile development, which is used to closely involve a prototypical customer in an iterative process that may
repeat on a daily basis; and
• The spiral model, which is used to confront and mitigate risk factors encountered in developing the successive
versions of a product.
The Incremental-Build Model

The incremental-build model is a build-test-demonstrated model of iterative cycles in which frequent demonstrations
of progress, verification, and validation of work-to-date are emphasized. The model is based on stable requirements
and a software architectural specification. Each build adds new capabilities to the incrementally growing product.
The process ends when the final version is verified, validated, demonstrated, and accepted by the customer.
Table 2 lists some partitioning criteria for incremental development into incremental build units of (typically) one
calendar week each. The increments and the number of developers available to work on the project determine the
number of features that can be included in each incremental build. This, in turn, determines the overall schedule.
Table 2. Some partitioning criteria for incremental builds (Fairley 2009). Reprinted with
permission of the IEEE Computer Society and John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights are
Kind of System Partitioning Criteria
Application package Priority of features
Safety-critical systems Safety features first; prioritized others follow
User-intensive systems User interface first; prioritized others follow
System software Kernel first; prioritized utilities follow
Figure 5 illustrates the details of the build-verify-validate-demonstrate cycles in the incremental build process. Each
build includes detailed design, coding, integration, review, and testing done by the developers. In cases where code
is to be reused without modification, some or all of an incremental build may consist of review, integration, and
testing of the base code augmented with the reused code. It is important to note that development of an increment
may result in reworking previous components developed for integration to fix defects.
Figure 5. Incremental Build-Verify-Validate-Demonstrate Cycles (Fairley 2009). Reprinted with permission of the IEEE
Computer Society and John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Incremental verification, validation, and demonstration, as illustrated in Figure 5, overcome two of the major
problems of a waterfall approach by:
• exposing problems early so they can be corrected as they occur; and
• incorporating minor in-scope changes to requirements that occur as a result of incremental demonstrations in
subsequent builds.
Figure 5 also illustrates that it may be possible to overlap successive builds of the product. It may be possible, for
example, to start a detailed design of the next version while the present version is being validated.
Three factors determine the degree of overlap that can be achieved:
1. Availability of personnel;
2. Adequate progress on the previous version; and
3. The risk of significant rework on the next overlapped build because of changes to the previous in-progress build.
The incremental build process generally works well with small teams, but can be scaled up for larger projects.
A significant advantage of an incremental build process is that features built first are verified, validated, and
demonstrated most frequently because subsequent builds incorporate the features of the earlier iterations. In building
the software to control a nuclear reactor, for example, the emergency shutdown software could be built first, as it
would then be verified and validated in conjunction with the features of each successive build.
In summary, the incremental build model, like all iterative models, provides the advantages of continuous integration
and validation of the evolving product, frequent demonstrations of progress, early warning of problems, early
delivery of subset capabilities, and systematic incorporation of the inevitable rework that occurs in software
development.
The Role of Prototyping in Software Development

In SwE, a prototype is a mock-up of the desired functionality of some part of the system. This is in contrast to
physical systems, where a prototype is usually the first fully functional version of a system (Fairley 2009, 74).
In the past, incorporating prototype software into production systems has created many problems. Prototyping is a
useful technique that should be employed as appropriate; however, prototyping is not a process model for software
development. When building a software prototype, the knowledge gained through the development of the prototype
is beneficial to the program; however, the prototype code may not be used in the deliverable version of the system.
In many cases, it is more efficient and more effective to build the production code from scratch using the knowledge
gained by prototyping than to re-engineer the existing code.
Life Cycle Sustainment of Software

Software, like all systems, requires sustainment efforts to enhance capabilities, adapt to new environments, and
correct defects. The primary distinction for software is that sustainment efforts change the software; unlike physical
entities, software components do not have to be replaced because of physical wear and tear. Changing the software
requires re-verification and re-validation, which may involve extensive regression testing to determine that the
change has the desired effect and has not altered other aspects of functionality or behavior.
Retirement of Software
Useful software is rarely retired; however, software that is useful often experiences many upgrades during its
lifetime. A later version may bear little resemblance to the initial release. In some cases, software that ran in a former
operational environment is executed on hardware emulators that provide a virtual machine on newer hardware. In
other cases, a major enhancement may replace and rename an older version of the software, but the enhanced version
provides all of the capabilities of the previous software in a compatible manner. Sometimes, however, a newer
version of software may fail to provide compatibility with the older version, which necessitates other changes to a
system.
Primarily Evolutionary and Concurrent Processes: The Incremental

Commitment Spiral Model
Overview of the Incremental Commitment Spiral Model

A view of the Incremental Commitment Spiral Model (ICSM) is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. The Incremental Commitment Spiral Model (ICSM) (Pew and Mavor 2007). Reprinted with permission by the National
Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
In the ICSM, each spiral addresses requirements and solutions concurrently, rather than sequentially, as well as
products and processes, hardware, software, human factors aspects, and business case analyses of alternative product
configurations or product line investments. The stakeholders consider the risks and risk mitigation plans and decide
on a course of action. If the risks are acceptable and covered by risk mitigation plans, the project proceeds into the
next spiral.
The development spirals after the first development commitment review follow the three-team incremental
development approach for achieving both agility and assurance shown and discussed in Figure 2,
"Evolutionary-Concurrent Rapid Change Handling and High Assurance" of System Life Cycle Process Drivers and
Choices.
Other Views of the Incremental Commitment Spiral Model

Figure 7 presents an updated view of the ICSM life cycle process recommended in the National Research Council
Human-System Integration in the System Development Process study (Pew and Mavor 2007). It was called the
Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) in the study. The ICSM builds on the strengths of current process models,
such as early verification and validation concepts in the Vee model, concurrency concepts in the concurrent
engineering model, lighter-weight concepts in the agile and lean models, risk-driven concepts in the spiral model, the
phases and anchor points in the rational unified process (RUP) (Kruchten 1999; Boehm 1996), and recent extensions
of the spiral model to address systems of systems (SoS) capability acquisition (Boehm and Lane 2007).
Figure 7. Phased View of the Generic Incremental Commitment Spiral Model Process (Pew and Mavor 2007). Reprinted
with permission by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. All other rights
The top row of activities in Figure 7 indicates that a number of system aspects are being concurrently engineered at
an increasing level of understanding, definition, and development. The most significant of these aspects are shown in
Figure 8, an extension of a similar “hump diagram” view of concurrently engineered software activities developed as
part of the RUP (Kruchten 1999).
Figure 8. ICSM Activity Categories and Level of Effort (Pew and Mavor 2007).
Reprinted with permission by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
As with the RUP version, the magnitude and shape of the levels of effort will be risk-driven and likely to vary from
project to project. Figure 8 indicates that a great deal of concurrent activity occurs within and across the various
ICSM phases, all of which need to be "synchronized and stabilized," a best-practice phrase taken from Microsoft
Secrets (Cusumano and Selby 1996) to keep the project under control.
The review processes and use of independent experts are based on the highly successful AT&T Architecture Review
Board procedures described in “Architecture Reviews: Practice and Experience” (Maranzano et al. 2005). Figure 9
shows the content of the feasibility evidence description. Showing feasibility of the concurrently developed elements
helps synchronize and stabilize the concurrent activities.
Figure 9. Feasibility Evidence Description Content (Pew and Mavor 2007). Reprinted with permission
by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. All other
The operations commitment review (OCR) is different in that it addresses the often-higher operational risks of
fielding an inadequate system. In general, stakeholders will experience a two- to ten-fold increase in commitment
level while going through the sequence of engineering certification review (ECR) to design certification review
(DCR) milestones, but the increase in going from DCR to OCR can be much higher. These commitment levels are
based on typical cost profiles across the various stages of the acquisition life cycle.
Underlying ICSM Principles

ICSM has four underlying principles which must be followed:
1. Stakeholder value-based system definition and evolution;
2. Incremental commitment and accountability;
3. Concurrent system and software definition and development; and
4. Evidence and risk-based decision making.
Model Experience to Date

The National Research Council Human-Systems Integration study (2008) found that the ICSM processes and
principles correspond well with best commercial practices, as described in the Next Generation Medical Infusion
Pump Case Study in Part 7. Further examples are found in Human-System Integration in the System Development
Process: A New Look (Pew and Mavor 2007, chap. 5), Software Project Management (Royce 1998, Appendix D),
and the annual series of "Top Five Quality Software Projects", published in CrossTalk (2002-2005).
Advise this information below be deleted or moved to Part 6 because some of it will be redundant to the new article
Agile Systems Engineering and the Lean part if redundant to the Lean Engineering article. These moves will drive
updates/clean-ups needed to the references. ---
Agile and Lean Processes

According to the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook 3.2.2, “Project execution methods can be described on a
continuum from 'adaptive' to 'predictive.' Agile methods exist on the 'adaptive' side of this continuum, which is not
the same as saying that agile methods are 'unplanned' or 'undisciplined,'” (INCOSE 2011, 179). Agile development
methods can be used to support iterative life cycle models, allowing flexibility over a linear process that better aligns
with the planned life cycle for a system. They primarily emphasize the development and use of tacit interpersonal
knowledge as compared to explicit documented knowledge, as evidenced in the four value propositions in the "Agile
Manifesto":
We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this
work we have come to value
• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools;
• Working software over comprehensive documentation;
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation; and
• Responding to change over following a plan.
That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. (Agile Alliance
2001)
Lean processes are often associated with agile methods, although they are more scalable and applicable to
high-assurance systems. Below, some specific agile methods are presented, and the evolution and content of lean
methods is discussed. Please see "Primary References", "Additional References", and the Lean Engineering article
for more detail on specific agile and lean processes.
Scrum
Figure 10 shows an example of Scrum as an agile process flow. As with most other agile methods, Scrum uses the
evolutionary sequential process shown in Table 1 (above) and described in Fixed-Requirements and Evolutionary
Development Processes section in which systems capabilities are developed in short periods, usually around 30 days.
The project then re-prioritizes its backlog of desired features and determines how many features the team (usually 10
people or less) can develop in the next 30 days.
Figure 10 also shows that once the features to be developed for the current Scrum have been expanded (usually in
the form of informal stories) and allocated to the team members, the team establishes a daily rhythm of starting with
a short meeting at which each team member presents a roughly one-minute summary describing progress since the
last Scrum meeting, potential obstacles, and plans for the upcoming day.
Figure 10. Example Agile Process Flow: Scrum (Boehm and Turner 2004). Reprinted with permission of Ken Schwaber. All other rights
Architected Agile Methods

Over the last decade, several organizations have been able to scale up agile methods by using two layers of
ten-person Scrum teams. This involves, among other things, having each Scrum team’s daily meeting followed up by
a daily meeting of the Scrum team leaders discussing up-front investments in evolving system architecture (Boehm
et al. 2010). Figure 11 shows an example of the Architected Agile approach.
Figure 11. Example of Architected Agile Process (Boehm 2009). Reprinted with permission of Barry Boehm on behalf of USC-CSSE. All other
Agile Practices and Principles

As seen with the Scrum and architected agile methods, "generally-shared" principles are not necessarily "uniformly
followed". However, there are some general practices and principles shared by most agile methods:
• The project team understands, respects, works, and behaves within a defined SE process;
• The project is executed as fast as possible with minimum down time or staff diversion during the project and the
critical path is managed;
• All key players are physically or electronically collocated, and "notebooks" are considered team property
available to all;
• Baseline management and change control are achieved by formal, oral agreements based on “make a
promise—keep a promise” discipline. Participants hold each other accountable;
• Opportunity exploration and risk reduction are accomplished by expert consultation and rapid model verification
coupled with close customer collaboration;
• Software development is done in a rapid development environment while hardware is developed in a
multi-disciplined model shop; and
• A culture of constructive confrontation pervades the project organization. The team takes ownership for success;
it is never “someone else’s responsibility.”
Agile development principles (adapted for SE) are as follows (adapted from Principles behind the Agile Manifesto
(Beedle et al. 2009)):
1. First, satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software (and other system
elements).
2. Welcome changing requirements, even late in development; agile processes harness change for the customer’s
competitive advantage.
3. Deliver working software (and other system elements) frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months,
with a preference to the shorter timescale.
4. Business personnel and developers must work together daily throughout the project.
5. Build projects around motivated individuals; give them the environment, support their needs, and trust them to
get the job done.
6. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information is face-to-face conversation.
7. Working software (and other system elements) is the primary measure of progress.
8. Agile processes promote sustainable development; the sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain
a constant pace indefinitely.
9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.
10. Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential.
11. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.
A team should reflect on how to become more effective at regular intervals and then tune and adjust its behavior
accordingly. This self-reflection is a critical aspect for projects that implement agile processes.
Lean Systems Engineering and Development
Origins
As the manufacturing of consumer products such as automobiles became more diversified, traditional pre-planned
mass-production approaches had increasing problems with quality and adaptability. Lean manufacturing systems
such as the Toyota Production System (TPS) (Ohno 1988) were much better suited to accommodate diversity, to
improve quality, and to support just-in-time manufacturing that could rapidly adapt to changing demand patterns
without having to carry large, expensive inventories.
Much of this transformation was stimulated by the work of W. Edwards Deming, whose Total Quality Management
(TQM) approach shifted responsibility for quality and productivity from planners and inspectors to the production
workers who were closer to the real processes (Deming 1982). Deming's approach involved everyone in the
manufacturing organization in seeking continuous process improvement, or "Kaizen".
Some of the TQM techniques, such as statistical process control and repeatability, were more suited to repetitive
manufacturing processes than to knowledge work such as systems engineering (SE) and software engineering (SwE).
Others, such as early error elimination, waste elimination, workflow stabilization, and Kaizen, were equally
applicable to knowledge work. Led by Watts Humphrey, TQM became the focus for the Software Capability
Maturity Model (Humphrey 1987; Paulk et al. 1994) and the CMM-Integrated or CMMI, which extended its scope to
include systems engineering (Chrissis et al. 2003). One significant change was the redefinition of Maturity Level 2
from "Repeatable" to "Managed".
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) conducted studies of the TPS, which produced a similar approach
that was called the "Lean Production System" (Krafcik 1988; Womack et al. 1990). Subsequent development of
"lean thinking" and related work at MIT led to the Air Force-sponsored Lean Aerospace Initiative (now called the
Lean Advancement Initiative), which applied lean thinking to SE (Murman 2003, Womack-Jones 2003).
Concurrently, lean ideas were used to strengthen the scalability and dependability aspects of agile methods for
software (Poppendieck 2003; Larman-Vodde 2009). The Kanban flow-oriented approach has been successfully
applied to software development (Anderson 2010).
Principles
Each of these efforts has developed a similar but different set of Lean principles. For systems engineering, the
current best source is Lean for Systems Engineering, the product of several years’ work by the INCOSE Lean SE
working group (Oppenheim 2011). It is organized into six principles, each of which is elaborated into a set of lean
enabler and sub-enabler patterns for satisfying the principle:
1. Value. Guide the project by determining the value propositions of the customers and other key stakeholders.
Keep them involved and manage changes in their value propositions.
2. Map the Value Stream (Plan the Program). This includes thorough requirements specification, the concurrent
exploration of trade spaces among the value propositions, COTS evaluation, and technology maturity assessment,
resulting in a full project plan and set of requirements.
3. Flow. Focus on the project’s critical path activities to avoid expensive work stoppages, including coordination
with external suppliers.
4. Pull. Pull the next tasks to be done based on prioritized needs and dependencies. If a need for the task can’t be
found, reject it as waste.
5. Perfection. Apply continuous process improvement to approach perfection. Drive defects out early to get the
system Right The First #Time, vs. fixing them during inspection and test. Find and fix root causes rather than
symptoms.
6. Respect for People. Flow down responsibility, authority, and accountability to all personnel. Nurture a learning
environment. Treat people as the organization’s most valued assets. (Oppenheim 2011)
These lean SE principles are highly similar to the four underlying incremental commitment spiral model principles.
• Principle 1: Stakeholder value-based system definition and evolution, addresses the lean SE principles of
value, value stream mapping, and respect for people (developers are success-critical stakeholders in the ICSM).
• Principle 2: Incremental commitment and accountability, partly addresses the pull principle, and also
addresses respect for people (who are accountable for their commitments).
• Principle 3: Concurrent system and software definition and development, partly addresses both value stream
mapping and flow.
• Principle 4: Evidence and risk-based decision making, uses evidence of achievability as its measure of
success. Overall, the ICSM principles are somewhat light on continuous process improvement, and the lean SE
principles are somewhat insensitive to requirements emergence in advocating a full pre-specified project plan and
set of requirements.
See Lean Engineering for more information.
References
Works Cited
Agile Alliance. 2001. “Manifesto for Agile Software Development.” http://agilemanifesto.org/.
Anderson, D. 2010. Kanban, Sequim, WA: Blue Hole Press.
Boehm, B. 1996. "Anchoring the Software Process." IEEE Software 13(4): 73-82.
Boehm, B. and J. Lane. 2007. “Using the Incremental Commitment Model to Integrate System Acquisition, Systems
Engineering, and Software Engineering.” CrossTalk. 20(10) (October 2007): 4-9.
Boehm, B., J. Lane, S. Koolmanjwong, and R. Turner. 2010. “Architected Agile Solutions for Software-Reliant
Systems,” in Dingsoyr, T., T. Dyba., and N. Moe (eds.), Agile Software Development: Current Research and Future
Directions. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
/www.crosstalkonline.org/storage/issue-archives/2004/200407/200407-0-Issue.pdf.
Chrissis, M., M. Konrad, and S. Shrum. 2003. CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement.
New York, NY, USA, Addison Wesley.
Deming, W.E. 1982. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT.
Fairley, R. 2009. Managing and Leading Software Projects. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Forsberg, K. 1995. "If I Could Do That, Then I Could…’ System Engineering in a Research and Development
Environment." Proceedings of the Fifth International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International
Symposium. 22-26 July 1995. St Louis, MO, USA.
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, and H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Humphrey, W., 1987. “Characterizing the Software Process: A Maturity Framework.” Pittsburgh, PA, USA: CMU
Software Engineering Institute. CMU/SEI-87-TR-11.
Krafcik, J. 1988. "Triumph of the lean production system". Sloan Management Review. 30(1): 41–52.
Larman , C. and B. Vodde. 2009. Scaling Lean and Agile Development. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
Maranzano, J.F., S.A. Rozsypal, G.H. Zimmerman, G.W. Warnken, P.E. Wirth, D.M. Weiss. 2005. “Architecture
Reviews: Practice and Experience.” IEEE Software. 22(2): 34-43.
Murman, E. 2003. Lean Systems Engineering I, II, Lecture Notes, MIT Course 16.885J, Fall. Cambridge, MA, USA:
MIT.
Oppenheim, B. 2011. Lean for Systems Engineering. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Paulk, M., C. Weber, B. Curtis, and M. Chrissis. 1994. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the
Software Process. Reading, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.
Pew, R. and A. Mavor (eds.). 2007. Human-System Integration in The System Development Process: A New Look.
Poppendieck, M. and T. Poppendieck. 2003. Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit for Software
Development Managers. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
Stauder, T. “Top Five Department of Defense Program Awards.” CrossTalk. 18(9) (September 2005): 4-13.
Womack, J., D. Jones, and D Roos. 1990. The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production.
New York, NY, USA: Rawson Associates.
Womack, J. and D. Jones. 2003. Lean Thinking. New York, NY, USA: The Free Press.
Primary References
[database online]. Accessed 2010. Available at: www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html.
Fairley, R. 2009. Managing and Leading Software Projects. New York, NY, USA: J. Wiley & Sons.
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, and H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: J.
Wiley & Sons.
INCOSE. 2012. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. Version
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Pew, R., and A. Mavor (eds.). 2007. Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look.
Royce, W.E. 1998. Software Project Management: A Unified Framework. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
Anderson, D. 2010. Kanban. Sequim, WA, USA: Blue Hole Press.
Baldwin, C. and K. Clark. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Beck, K. 1999. Extreme Programming Explained. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
Beedle, M., et al. 2009. "The Agile Manifesto: Principles behind the Agile Manifesto" in The Agile Manifesto
[database online]. Accessed 2010. Available at: www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
Biffl, S., A. Aurum, B. Boehm, H. Erdogmus, and P. Gruenbacher (eds.). 2005. Value-Based Software Engineering.
New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Boehm, B. 1988. “A Spiral Model of Software Development.” IEEE Computer. 21(5): 61-72.
Boehm, B., A. Egyed, J. Kwan, D. Port, A. Shah, and R. Madachy. 1998. “Using the WinWin Spiral Model: A Case
Study.” IEEE Computer. 31(7): 33-44.
Boehm, B., J. Lane, S. Koolmanojwong, and R. Turner. 2013 (in press). Embracing the Spiral Model: Creating
Successful Systems with the Incremental Commitment Spiral Model. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley.
/www.crosstalkonline.org/storage/issue-archives/2004/200407/200407-0-Issue.pdf.
Crosson, S. and B. Boehm. 2009. “Adjusting Software Life Cycle Anchorpoints: Lessons Learned in a System of
Systems Context.” Proceedings of the Systems and Software Technology Conference, 20-23 April 2009, Salt Lake
City, UT, USA.
Dingsoyr, T., T. Dyba. and N. Moe (eds.). 2010. "Agile Software Development: Current Research and Future
Directions.” Chapter in B. Boehm, J. Lane, S. Koolmanjwong, and R. Turner, Architected Agile Solutions for
Software-Reliant Systems. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Dorner, D. 1996. The Logic of Failure. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.
Forsberg, K. 1995. "'If I Could Do That, Then I Could…' System Engineering in a Research and Development
Environment.” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
International Symposium. 22-26 July 1995. St. Louis, MO, USA.
Forsberg, K. 2010. “Projects Don’t Begin With Requirements.” Proceedings of the IEEE Systems Conference. 5-8
April 2010. San Diego, CA, USA.
Gilb, T. 2005. Competitive Engineering. Maryland Heights, MO, USA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
Goldratt, E. 1984. The Goal. Great Barrington, MA, USA: North River Press.
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Holland, J. 1998. Emergence. New York, NY, USA: Perseus Books.
24748-1:2010.
International Organisation for Standardisation / International Electrotechnical Commissions. ISO/IEC/IEEE
15288:2015.
ISO/IEC. 2003. Systems Engineering — A Guide for The Application of ISO/IEC 15288 System Life Cycle
Processes. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC 19760:2003 (E).
Landis, T. R. 2010. Lockheed Blackbird Family (A-12, YF-12, D-21/M-21 & SR-71). North Branch, MN, USA:
Specialty Press.
Madachy, R. 2008. Software Process Dynamics. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Maranzano, J., et al. 2005. “Architecture Reviews: Practice and Experience.” IEEE Software. 22(2): 34-43.
National Research Council of the National Academies (USA). 2008. Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase Systems
Engineering. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press.
Osterweil, L. 1987. “Software Processes are Software Too.” Proceedings of the SEFM 2011: 9th International
Conference on Software Engineering. Monterey, CA, USA.
Poppendeick, M. and T. Poppendeick. 2003. Lean Software Development: an Agile Toolkit. New York, NY, USA:
Addison Wesley.
Rechtin, E. 1991. System Architecting: Creating and Building Complex Systems. Upper Saddle River, NY, USA:
Prentice-Hall.
Rechtin, E., and M. Maier. 1997. The Art of System Architecting. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Schwaber, K. and M. Beedle. 2002. Agile Software Development with Scrum. Upper Saddle River, NY, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Stauder, T. 2005. “Top Five Department of Defense Program Awards.” CrossTalk. 18(9) (September 2005): 4-13.
Warfield, J. 1976. Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Womack, J. and D. Jones. 1996. Lean Thinking. New York, NY, USA: Simon and Schuster.

System Life Cycle Process Models: Agile Systems

Engineering
Lead Author: Phyllis Marbach
For a system, a life cycle usually starts at the concept definition phase, moves through stages until completion of this
system, as defined in the concept definition stage. A model of the life cycle may be a physical, data or graphic
representation of that life cycle. The process describes the steps to accomplish each stage of the life cycle including
input to and output from this stage. Today’s complex and increasingly highly connected systems face rapid
obsolescence under the stress of technological change, environmental change, and rapidly evolving mission needs.
For these systems to remain robust against disruption they must be architected to agilely adapt. To meet these needs,
the system must be assessed to apply the process that best serves the system, subsystem or component of the system
of interest (SOI).
It is important to determine the best life cycle to use for the SOI early in the concept definition phase. On a program
that is going to operate agilely, especially if it will be a hybrid model with agile, and other life cycle models it is
important to define and harmonize them at key integration points based on hardware or other long-lead item
maturity. An informative case study where the key integration points were identified across multiple life cycles in
use by various significant components of the South African Radio Astronomy Observatory (SARAO) provides an
excellent example of a methodology tailoring process (Kusel 2020).
In the Agile SE process, the systems engineer works in an iterative, incremental manner, continually modeling,
analyzing, developing, and trading options to bring the definition of the system solution into focus. An example of
this work will be analyzing and maintaining not only the requirements but also the architectural model of the
higher-level requirements and the linkage from those high-level requirements to the analyzed lower-level
requirements. In addition to the requirements and architecture representations, maintaining and verifying the
interfaces are defined and followed as the development progresses are some of the systems engineers’ tasks. These
responsibilities of systems engineers are the same regardless of the life cycle, although sequencing and organization
may be different. Program leadership, systems engineering, and all team members work in a culture that represents
an Agile Mindset. The Agile Mindset is a combination of beliefs and actions from agile values that include focusing
on delivering working capabilities often, trusting the knowledge workers to find the best solution, improving the
product and process through regular demonstrations and retrospections, planning often to implement lessons learned.
Principles for Agile Development

Principles for agile development (Marbach 2015) provide a foundation for the working relationship across
cross-functional teams that include Systems and Software Engineers working on customer projects that include both
hardware development and software development. These principles, in Table 1, are a modified version that
originated from the Agile Manifesto (Beck 2001) and were expanded to apply to systems engineering. Adopting
these principles will enable teams of teams to produce high-value capabilities incrementally.
Principles for Agile Development (Marbach 2015) SEBoK Traditional SE Principles
First, satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable 1. SE in application is specific to stakeholder needs, solution space,
capabilities. resulting system solution(s), and context throughout the system life
cycle.
8. SE addresses stakeholder needs, taking into consideration budget,
schedule, and technical needs, along with other expectations and
constraints.
2. Plan for evolving requirements, and retain as much flexibility as is 7. Stakeholder needs can change and must be accounted for over the
valuable throughout development; agile processes harness change for the system life cycle.
customer, especially when change leads to a competitive advantage. 9. SE decisions are made under uncertainty accounting for risk.
3. Deliver working capabilities frequently, from a couple of weeks to a 5. The real physical system is the perfect model of the system.
couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale. 2. SE has a holistic system view that includes the system elements
and the interactions amongst themselves, the enabling systems, and
the system environment.
4. Business personnel, customers or their advocates and implementers must 3. SE influences and is influenced by internal and external resources,
work together daily throughout the project. and political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and
legal factors. 13. SE integrates engineering disciplines in an effective
manner.
14. SE is responsible for managing the discipline interactions within
the organization.
5. Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment 6. A focus of SE is a progressively deeper understanding of the
and support they need, and trust them to get the job done. interactions, sensitivities, and behaviors of the system, stakeholder
needs, and its operational environment.
6. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information is 13. SE integrates engineering disciplines in an effective manner.
personal conversation.
7. Working capabilities are the primary measure of progress. 5. The real physical system is the perfect model of the system.
8. Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, 8. SE addresses stakeholder needs, taking into consideration budget,
developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely. schedule, and technical needs, along with other expectations and
constraints.
9. SE decisions are made under uncertainty accounting for risk.
9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances 10. Decision quality depends on knowledge of the system, enabling
agility. system(s), and interoperating system(s) present in the
decision-making process.
10. Simplicity “the art of maximizing the amount of work not done” is 4. Both policy and law must be properly understood to not
essential, especially within the implementation team. A truly agile over-constrain or under-constrain the system implementation.
development project does not force artificial reporting and process
requirements on the implementation team.
11. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from 10. Decision quality depends on knowledge of the system, enabling
self-organizing teams, based on a minimal set of guiding principles. system(s), and interoperating system(s) present in the
decision-making process.
12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, 4. Both policy and law must be properly understood to not
then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly. over-constrain or under-constrain the system implementation.
The Principles for Agile Development emphasize focusing on working capabilities and keeping work in progress
small. Table 1 maps the Principles for Agile Development to traditional SE Principles elaborated elsewhere in the
SEBoK. The Principles for Agile Development are complementary to the traditional SE Principles and in some
cases very similar. Click here for the complete set of the SEBoK Systems Engineering Principles.
Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle Model for Mixed Discipline Engineering (Dove 2019) describes principles
that facilitate operational agility in action: Sense, Respond and Evolve (SRE). A large program over the entire life
cycle will benefit from applying these principles. In addition, the Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®) describes
principles that facilitate developmental agility on large programs with teams of teams including systems
engineering. The Operational Agility Principles and the SAFe Lean-Agile Principles are mapped in Table 2 to show
the consistency between them. There is value in starting from an agile mindset and applying a set of principles.
Operational Agility Principles (Dove, et al) Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) Lean-Agile Principles
Sensing: External awareness (proactive alertness) - Take an Economic view - Apply Systems Thinking
Sensing: Internal awareness (proactive alertness) - Visualize and limit WIP, reduce batch sizes, and manage queue length
Sensing: Sense making (risk analysis, trade space analysis) - Apply Systems Thinking
Responding: Decision making (timely, informed) - Decentralize decision-making - Apply cadence, synchronize with cross-domain
planning
- Organize around value
- Assume variability; preserve option
Responding: Action making (invoke/configure process - Unlock the intrinsic motivation of knowledge workers - Base milestones on
activity to address the situation) objective evaluation of working system
Responding: Action evaluation (verification and validation) - Apply cadence, synchronize with cross-domain planning - Visualize and limit WIP,
reduce batch sizes, and manage queue length
- Base milestones on objective evaluation of working system
Evolving: Experimentation (variations on process ConOps) - Base milestones on objective evaluation of working system
Evolving: Evaluation (internal and external judgement) - Base milestones on objective evaluation of working system - Build incrementally
with fast, integrated learning cycles
Evolving: Memory (evolving culture, response capabilities, - Assume variability; preserve option - Base milestones on objective evaluation of
and process ConOps) working system
Table 2. Comparison (or mapping) of Principles for cross-discipline teams. The SAFe Lean-Agile Principles [1] are
copyrighted material of Scaled Agile, Inc.
Using the Agile Mindset aligned with the Agile Values, the Principles of Agile Development and SAFe Lean-Agile
Principles can be applied to the stages of the Agile SE Life Cycle.
A Generic Life Cycle Model shows a Definition stage, a Realization Stage and a Retirement Stage. Within each
stage are further stages. Each SOI has a corresponding life cycle model which is composed of stages that are
populated with processes. The processes within each stage may be the Vee, Iterative or Agile depending on the
assessment of the SOI performed during the Definition stage. Several process models have been presented in
literature and may be called Agile Systems Engineering Process, Model or Framework.
There are six system life cycle stages “commonly encountered” according to ISO/IES/IEEE 24748-1 Systems and
Software Engineering – Life Cycle Management – Part 1: Guide for Life Cycle Management (ISO/IES/IEEE 2018).
Dove describes an “asynchronous and concurrent life-cycle stage and process activity” that adds a seventh life-cycle
stage, Situational Awareness (Dove 2019). This representation, Figure 1, was developed as part of four case studies
of organizations who were using agile practices effectively in their systems development. Using this Agile Systems
Engineering Life Cycle Model (ASELCM) the path may start at the “Concept” stage, move into the Situational
Awareness phase, then move into the Development phase, back to the Situational Awareness phase and so forth
around the circle. This situational awareness phase allows for a demonstration, review, and continuous improvement
before shifting attention back to the next appropriate phase, such as back to concept or into development.
Figure 1. The Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle Model (ASELCM). (Dove and Schindel
2019, Used with Permission)
The life cycle model represented in Figure 1 can be depicted visually using the S*Pattern Class Hierarchy shown in
Figure 2. In this hierarchy the top level shows an entity relationship paradigm, “the minimum conceptual content
necessary to model any system for purposes of engineering or science.” (Schindel 2016). As one moves to the more
specific model representations the ASELCM Pattern inherits content from parent patterns.
Figure 2. S* Pattern Class Hierarchy (Schindel and Dove 2016, Used with Permission)
The “General ASELCM Pattern” shown at about the middle of Figure 2 is enlarged in Figure 3. In developing a
systems of interest (SOI) one must consider not only the SOI we can think of as the target system, System 1 in
Figure 3, but also consider the process that produces the target system, System 2 in Figure 3. Besides systems 1 and
2 there is a third system shown as the System of Innovation. This System 3 is the meta-view of that which influences
the design, development, and operation of the target system, the embedded behavioral framework of System 1 and 2.
In modeling the target system the other influencing systems 2 and 3 should be considered.
Figure 3. Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle Model (ASELCM) Pattern (Schindel and Dove 2016, Used with Permission)
Other system engineering models, the Traditional (or waterfall), the Vee, Incremental, and spiral are described in
those SEBoK articles.
Frameworks
The Agile Systems Engineering process steps that are performed in each of the stages often include:
1. Define the highest priority and/or highest risk item to work first, keeping design options open, until the last
responsible moment. This produces a list of work items with the highest work item on top. This prioritized list of
work items is called a program backlog.
2. During development iterations engineers analyze the requirement, design the solutions to meet those
requirements, develop their products, perform tests of that product, and demonstrate that product. For the systems
engineering products these records are best retained in tools such as a requirements management tool, a
model-based system engineering tool, and a configuration-controlled repository, to name a few. The development
iteration is a short period of time, usually from two weeks to four weeks in duration.
3. For large products in development where multiple teams integrate their work items together to show a
demonstratable product, several iterations may be needed to get to that point. This multiple iteration period is
often referred to as an increment and frequently takes about three months.
4. Prior to starting an increment, all teams working to produce demonstrable products, should meet to plan their
work, identify dependencies between the teams and establish commitments to meet the plan. This planning is
called different things depending on the framework used by the program. Some call it the big room planning,
some call it the Program Increment Planning.
5. At the end of the set of iterations the demonstrable product may be “released” to the stakeholders. Then all
members of the program meet to plan the next increment of work.
A visual representation of teams working to this described cadence is shown in Figure 4 (Rosser et al. 2014).
Figure 4. The Agile SE Framework (Rosser et al. 2014, Used with Permission)
This Agile Systems Engineering (SE) Framework (Rosser 2014) aligns with the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) [2]
depiction of teams working program and team backlogs using iterative development. SAFe is a framework that
implements the principles of iterative development. It represents how a large system may have multiple life cycle
processes being followed in parallel over time. Key decision points need to be aligned between the multiple life
cycle processes. There are many agile approaches that a program could use as is or combined to adapt to what works
best for a given domain. The AgileAlliance (2017, 100) illustrates many of the “agile approaches based on their
depth of guidance and breadth of their life cycles”.
For a complex system with changing requirements the assessment may result in the decision to use an incremental,
iterative approach for development. Regardless of which model or framework is selected a program starts with a
vision, a budget and usually a period of performance. Then the program’s stakeholders identify the highest value
capability to develop first. The list of capabilities is prioritized so that the long-term development is visible.
However, this prioritized order may change as work progresses. What is known about the intended product may have
well defined requirements and architecture representations and what is conceptual will have those requirements and
designs developed incrementally as time progresses. This incremental method of development is enabled by the use
of an open system architecture, Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) tools, Set-based design, design thinking,
continuous integration, continuous development, architecture patterns, microservice architecture, and Lean
engineering.
References
Works Cited
Agile Alliance®, Project Management Institute (PMI). 2017. "Annex A3 Overview of Agile and Lean Frameworks,"
in Agile Practice Guide, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute, Inc. p. 100.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Greening, J., Highsmith, J.,
Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., Thomas, D. 2001. Principles
behind the Agile Manifesto. Accessed September 12, 2020. Available: Agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
Dove, R., Schindel, W. 2019. "Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle Model for Mixed Discipline Engineering."
Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July
20-25, 2019, Orlando, FL, USA.
Kusel, T. 2020. "A generic Systems Engineering process tailoring methodology, based on lessons from MeerKAT."
20-22, 2020.
Marbach, P., Rosser, L., Osvalds, G., Lempia, D. 2015. "Principles for Agile Development." Proceedings of the
International Conference on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 13-16, 2015, Seattle,
WA, USA.
Rosser, L., Marbach, P., Osvalds, G., Lempia, D. 2014. "Systems Engineering for Software Intensive Programs using
Agile." Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium,
June 30-July 3, 2014, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe®) Lean-Agile Principles. Accessed September 12, 2020. Available: https:/ / www.
scaledagileframework.com/safe-lean-agile-principles/
Schindel, W., Dove, R. 2016. "Introduction to the Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle MBSE Pattern.”
18-21, 2016, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Primary References
Agile Alliance®, Project Management Institute (PMI). 2017. "Annex A3 Overview of Agile and Lean Frameworks,"
in Agile Practice Guide, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute, Inc. p. 100.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Greening, J., Highsmith, J.,
Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., Thomas, D. 2001. Principles
behind the Agile Manifesto. Accessed September 12, 2020. Available: Agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
Dove, R., Schindel, W. 2019. "Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle Model for Mixed Discipline Engineering."
20-25, 2019, Orlando, FL, USA.
Kusel, T. 2020. "A generic Systems Engineering process tailoring methodology, based on lessons from MeerKAT."
20-22, 2020.
Marbach, P., Rosser, L., Osvalds, G., Lempia, D. 2015. "Principles for Agile Development." Proceedings of the
International Conference on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 13-16, 2015, Seattle,
WA, USA.
Rosser, L., Marbach, P., Osvalds, G., Lempia, D. 2014. "Systems Engineering for Software Intensive Programs using
Agile." Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium,
June 30-July 3, 2014, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe®) Lean-Agile Principles. Accessed September 12, 2020. Available: https:/ / www.
scaledagileframework.com/safe-lean-agile-principles/
Schindel, W., Dove, R. 2016. "Introduction to the Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle MBSE Pattern.”
18-21, 2016, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Ward., D. 2014. F.I.R.E. How Fast, Inexpensive, Restrained, and Elegant Methods Ignite Innovation, New York,
NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

References
[1] https:/ / www. scaledagileframework. com/ safe-lean-agile-principles/
[2] https:/ / www. scaledagileframework. com/
Process Integration
Lead Authors: Kevin Forsberg, Bud Lawson
When performing systems engineering activities, it is important to consider the mutual relationship between
processes and the desired system. The type of system (see Types of Systems) being produced will affect the needed
processes, as indicated in system life cycle process drivers and choices. This may cause the tailoring of defined
processes as described in application of systems engineering standards.
Process and Product Models

Figure 1 of life cycle models introduced the perspective of viewing stage work products provided by process
execution as versions of a system-of-interest (SoI) at various life stages. The fundamental changes that take place
during the life cycle of any man-made system include definition, production, and utilization. When building upon
these, it is useful to consider the structure of a generic process and product life cycle stage model as portrayed in
Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Generic (T) Stage Structure of System Life Cycle (Lawson 2010). Reprinted with permission of Harold "Bud"
Lawson. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
The (T) model indicates that a definition stage precedes a production stage where the implementation (acquisition,
provisioning, or development) of two or more system elements has been accomplished. The system elements are
integrated according to defined relationships into the SoI. Thus, both the process and product aspects are portrayed.
The implementation and integration processes are followed in providing the primary stage results—namely, in
assembled system product or service instances. However, as noted in life cycle models, the definition of the SoI
when provided in a development stage can also be the result of first versions of the system. For example, a prototype,
which may be viewed as a form of production or pre-production stage. Following the production stage is a utilization
stage. Further relevant stages can include support and retirement. Note that this model also displays the important
distinction between definition versus implementation and integration.
According to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015), this structure is generic for any type of man-made SoI to undergo life
cycle management. The production stage thus becomes the focal point of the (T) model at which system elements are
implemented and integrated into system product or service instances based upon the definitions. For defined physical
systems, this is the point at which product instances are manufactured and assembled (singularly or mass-produced).
For non-physical systems, the implementation and integration processes are used in service preparation
(establishment) prior to being instantiated to provide a service. For software systems, this is the point at which builds
that combine software elements into versions, releases, or some other form of managed software product are
produced.
Using recursive decomposition, the implementation of each system element can involve the invocation of the
standard again at the next lowest level, thus treating the system element as a SoI in its own right. A new life cycle
structure is then utilized for the lower level SoIs.
This is illustrated in the Dual Vee model (Figures 2a and 2b). The Dual Vee model is a three-dimensional system
development model that integrates product and process in the creation of the system and component architectures. It
emphasizes
• concurrent opportunity and risk management;
• user in-process validation;
• integration, verification, and validation planning; and
• verification problem resolution.
When decomposition terminates according to the practical need and risk-benefit analysis, system elements are then
implemented (acquired, provisioned, or developed) according to the type of element involved.
Figure 2a. The Dual Vee Model (2a) (Forsberg, Mooz, Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All
other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Figure 2b. The Dual Vee Model (2b) (Forsberg, Mooz, Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All
A practical aspect that can impact the process and product aspect is the decision to use off-the-shelf elements in
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) form. In this case, further decomposition of the element is not necessary. The use
of COTS elements (and their internally created neighbor or non-development item (NDI)) has become widespread,
and they have proven their value. However, developers must make sure that the COTS product is appropriate for
their environment.
A known flaw which occurs infrequently in normal use of the product in its intended environment may be benign
and easily dealt with. In a new situation, it could have dramatic adverse consequences, such as those that occurred on
the USS Yorktown Cruiser in 1998 (Wired News Contributors 1998). The customer mandated that Windows NT be
used as the primary operating system for the ship. A divide by zero fault caused the operating system to fail, and the
ship was dead in the water. It had to be towed back to port on three occasions.
Spiral models concurrently engineer not only process and product models, but also property and success models.
Figure 3 shows how these models provide checks and balances, both at milestone reviews and as individual model
choices are made. Methods and tools supporting this concurrent engineering are provided in “When Models Collide:
Lessons from Software System Analysis” (Boehm and Port 1999), “Avoiding the Software Model-Clash Spiderweb”
(Boehm, Port, and Al-Said 2000), and “Detecting Model Clashes During Software Systems Development” (Al-Said
2003).
Figure 3. Spiral Model Support for Process Models, Product Models, Success Models, Property Models (Boehm and Port 1999). Reprinted
with permission of © Copyright IEEE – All rights reserved. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
For software systems, entry into the production stages is the point at which builds that combine software elements
(code modules) into versions, releases, or some other form of managed software product are created. Thus, the major
difference between systems in general and software systems is the slight variant of the generic model as presented in
Figure 4.
Figure 4. T-Model for Software System (Lawson 2010). Reprinted with permission of Harold "Bud" Lawson. All other rights
Stage Execution Order

A sequential execution of life cycle stages is the most straightforward. As presented in System Life Cycle Process
Models: Vee and System Life Cycle Process Models: Iterative, variants of the Vee model and the spiral model
provide non-sequential models when practical considerations require a non-linear execution of life cycle stages.
Building upon these two models, it is important to note that various types of complex systems require that the stages
of the life cycle model be revisited as insight (knowledge) is gained, as well as when stakeholder requirements
change. The iterations may involve necessary changes in the processes and in the product or service system. Thus,
within the context of the (T) stage model, various orderings of stage execution - reflecting forms of non-sequential
stage ordering - can be conveniently described, as portrayed in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Iteration Through Life Cycle Stages (Lawson 2010). Reprinted with permission of Harold "Bud" Lawson. All
Each pattern of stage execution involves iteration of the previous stages, perhaps with altered requirements for the
processes or the system. The heavy lines in Figure 5 denote the demarcation of the revisited end points. Three are
iterative forms, for which several variants can be extracted:
1. Iterative development is quite frequently deployed in order to assess stakeholder requirements, analyze the
requirements, and develop a viable architectural design. Thus, it is typical that the concept stage may be revisited
during the development stage. For systems where products are based upon physical structures (electronics,
mechanics, chemicals, and so on), iteration after production has begun can involve significant costs and schedule
delays. It is, therefore, important to get it "right" before going to production. The early stages are thus used to
build confidence (verify and validate) that the solution works properly and will meet the needs of the
stakeholders. Naturally, such an approach could be used for software and human activity systems as well;
however, due to their soft nature, it can be useful to go further by experimenting and evaluating various
configurations of the system.
2. Iterative development and implementation involves producing (defining, implementing, and integrating)
various versions of the system, evaluating how well they meet stakeholder requirements, perhaps in the context of
changing requirements, and then revisiting the concept and/or development stages. Such iterations are typical
within software system development, where the cost of production is not as significant as for defined physical
systems. A variant of this approach is the spiral model, where successive iterations fill in more detail (Boehm and
May 1998). The use of this approach requires careful attention to issues related to baseline and configuration
management. In this approach, significant verification (testing) should be performed on software systems in order
to build confidence that the system delivered will meet stakeholder requirements.
3. Incremental or progressive acquisition involves releasing systems in the form of products and/or services to the
consumers. This approach is appropriate when structural and capability (functions) changes are anticipated in a
controlled manner after deployment. The use of this approach can be due to not knowing all of the requirements at
the beginning, which leads to progressive acquisition/deployment, or due to a decision to handle the complexity
of the system and its utilization in increments—namely, incremental acquisition. These approaches are vital for
complex systems in which software is a significant system element. Each increment involves revisiting the
definition and production stages. The utilization of these approaches must be based upon well-defined, agreed
relationships between the supplying and acquiring enterprises. In fact, the iteration associated with each resulting
product and/or service instance may well be viewed as a joint project, with actor roles being provided by both
enterprises.
In all of the approaches it is wise to use modeling and simulation techniques and related tools to assist in
understanding the effect of changes made in the complex systems being life cycle managed. These techniques are
typically deployed in the earlier stages; however, they can be used in gaining insight into the potential problems and
opportunities associated with the latter stages of utilization and maintenance (for example, in understanding the
required logistics and help-desk aspects).
Allocating and Meeting Requirements - Integration of Process and Product

Models
Regardless of the order in which life cycle stages are executed, stakeholder requirements for the system, including
changed requirements in each iteration, must be allocated into appropriate activities of the processes used in projects
for various stages as well as to the properties of the elements of the product system or service system and their
defined relationships. This distribution was illustrated in the fourth variant of Lawson’s T-model as presented in
System Life Cycle Process Models: Iterative and System Life Cycle Process Models: Vee.
Ideally, the project management team should implement proven processes that will integrate the technical process
models with the project management product models to manage any of the processes discussed earlier, including
incremental and evolutionary development. The processes shown are the project management flow, starting with the
beginning of the development phase (Forsberg, Mooz, and Cotterman 2005, 201).
Figure 6a. New Product Planning Process – Getting Started (Forsberg, Mooz, and Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with permission of
Figure 6b. New Product Planning Process Solving the Problem (Forsberg, Mooz, and Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with
permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Figure 6c. New Product Planning Process – Getting Commitment (Forsberg, Mooz, and Cotterman 2005). Reprinted with
permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
References
Works Cited
Boehm, B. and W. May. 1988. "A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement." IEEE Computer
21(5): 61-72.
Boehm, B. and D. Port. 1999. "When Models Collide: Lessons From Software System Analysis." IT Professional
1(1): 49-56.
Boehm, B., J. Lane, S. Koolmanojwong, and R. Turner (forthcoming). Embracing the Spiral Model: Creating
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, and H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management. 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: J.
Wiley & Sons.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015.Systems and Software Engineering-- System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organisation for Standardisation / International Electrotechnical Commissions.ISO/IEC/IEEE
15288:2015
Wired News Contributors. 2011. “Sunk by Windows NT,” Wired News, last modified July 24, 1998. Accessed on
September 11, 2011. Available at http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/07/13987.
Primary References
Boehm, B. and W. May. 1988. “A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement.” IEEE Computer.
21(5): 61-72.
John Wiley & Sons.
Al-Said, M. 2003. "Detecting Model Clashes During Software Systems Development." PhD Diss. Department of
Computer Science, University of Southern California, December 2003.
Boehm, B., J. Lane, S. Koolmanojwong, and R. Turner. (forthcoming). Embracing the Spiral Model: Creating
Boehm, B. and D. Port. 1999. "Escaping the Software Tar Pit: Model Clashes and How to Avoid Them." ACM
Software Engineering Notes. (January, 1999): p. 36-48.
Boehm, B. and D. Port. 1999. "When Models Collide: Lessons From Software System Analysis." IT Professional.
1(1): 49-56.
Boehm, B., D. Port, and M. Al-Said. 2000. "Avoiding the Software Model-Clash Spiderweb." IEEE Computer.
33(11): 120-122.
Lawson, H. and M. Persson. 2010. “Portraying Aspects of System Life Cycle Models.” Proceedings of the European
Systems Engineering Conference (EuSEC). 23-26 May 2010. Stockholm, Sweden.

Lean Engineering
Lean Systems Engineering (LSE) is the application of lean thinking (Womack 2003) to systems engineering (SE)
and related aspects of enterprise and project management. LSE is an approach that is applicable throughout the
system life cycle. The goal of LSE is to deliver the best life-cycle value for technically complex systems with
minimal waste. Lean engineering is relevant to all of the traditional SE technical processes (see concept definition,
system definition, system realization, system deployment and use, etc.). Lean engineering also interacts with and
utilizes many of the specialty engineering disciplines discussed in Part 6.
Lean Systems Engineering

SE is an established, sound practice, but not always delivered effectively. Most programs are burdened with some
form of waste such as: poor coordination, unstable requirements, quality problems, delays, rework, or management
frustration. Recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), National Aeronautics and Space Association
(NASA), and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) studies of government programs document major budget
and schedule overruns and a significant amount of waste in government programs - some reaching seventy percent of
charged time. This waste represents a productivity reserve in programs and major opportunities to improve program
efficiency.
LSE is the application of lean thinking to systems engineering and related aspects of enterprise and project
management. SE is focused on the discipline that enables development of complex technical systems. Lean thinking
is a holistic paradigm that focuses on delivering maximum value to the customer and minimizing wasteful practices.
It has been successfully applied in manufacturing, aircraft depots, administration, supply chain management,
healthcare, and product development, which includes engineering. LSE is the area of synergy between lean thinking
and SE, which aims to deliver the best life-cycle value for technically complex systems with minimal waste. LSE
does not mean less SE. It means more and better SE with higher responsibility, authority, and accountability (RAA),
leading to better, waste-free workflow with increased mission assurance. Under the LSE philosophy, mission
assurance is non-negotiable and any task which is legitimately required for success must be included; however, it
should be well-planned and executed with minimal waste.
Lean Principles
Oppenheim (2011) describes the six lean principles for product development (PD) as follows:
1. Capture the value defined by the customer. One cannot over-emphasize the importance of capturing task or
program value (requirements, CONOPS, etc.) with precision, clarity, and completeness before resource
expenditures ramp up to avoid unnecessary rework.
2. Map the value stream (plan the program) and eliminate waste. Map all end-to-end linked tasks,
control/decision nodes, and the interconnecting information flows necessary to realize customer value. During the
mapping process, eliminate all non-value-added activities, and enable the remaining activities to flow (without
rework, backflow or stopping). The term information flow refers to the packets of information (knowledge)
created by different tasks and flowing to other tasks for subsequent value adding, such as: design, analysis, test,
review, decision, or integration. Each task adds value if it increases the level of useful information and reduces
risk in the context of delivering customer value.
3. Flow the work through planned and streamlined value-adding steps and processes, without stopping or
idle time, unplanned rework, or backflow. To optimize flow, one should plan for maximum concurrency of
tasks, up to near capacity of an enterprise. Legitimate engineering iterations are frequently needed in PD, but they
tend to be time consuming and expensive if they extend across disciplines. Lean PD encourages efficient
methodology of fail early - fail often through rapid architecting and discovery techniques during early design
phases. Lean flow also makes every effort to use techniques that prevent lengthy iterations, such as design
frontloading, trade space explorations, set designs, modular designs, legacy knowledge, and large margins. Where
detailed cross-functional iterations are indeed necessary, lean flow optimizes iteration loops for overall value.
4. Let customers pull value. In PD, the pull principle has two important meanings: (1) the inclusion of any task in a
program must be justified by a specific need from an internal or external customer and coordinated with them,
and (2) the task should be completed when the customer needs the output. Excessively early completion leads to
“shelf life obsolescence” including possible loss of human memory or changed requirements and late completion
leads to schedule slips. This is the reason that every task owner or engineer needs to be in close communication
with their internal customers to fully understand their needs and expectations and to coordinate their work.
5. Pursue perfection of all processes. Global competition requires continuous improvements of processes and
products. Yet, no organization can afford to spend resources improving everything all the time. Systems engineers
must make a distinction between processes and process outputs. Perfecting and refining the work output in a given
task must be bounded by the overall value proposition (system or mission success, program budget and schedule)
which define when an output is "good enough." In contrast, engineering and other processes must be continuously
improved for competitive reasons.
6. Respect for people. A lean enterprise is an organization that recognizes that its people are the most important
resource. In a lean enterprise, people are not afraid to identify problems and imperfections honestly and openly in
real time, brainstorm about root causes and corrective actions without fear, or plan effective solutions together by
consensus to prevent a problem from occurring again.
Lean Enablers for Systems

In 2009, the International Council on Systems Engineering's (INCOSE's) Lean SE Working Group (LSE WG)
released an online product entitled Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering (LEfSE). It is a collection of practices and
recommendations formulated as “dos” and “don’ts” of SE, based on lean thinking. The practices cover a large
spectrum of SE and other relevant enterprise management practices, with a general focus on improving the program
value and stakeholder satisfaction and reduce waste, delays, cost overruns, and frustrations. LEfSE are grouped
under the six lean principles outlined above. The LEfSE are not intended to become a mandatory practice but should
be used as a checklist of good practices. LEfSE do not replace the traditional SE; instead, they amend it with lean
thinking.
LEfSE were developed by fourteen experienced INCOSE practitioners, some recognized leaders in lean and SE from
industry, academia, and governments (such as the U.S., United Kingdom, and Israel), with cooperation from the
160-member international LSE WG. They collected best practices from the many companies, added collective tacit
knowledge, wisdom, and experience of the LSE WG members, and inserted best practices from lean research and
literature. The product has been evaluated by surveys and comparisons with the recent programmatic
recommendations by GAO and NASA.
Oppenheim (2011) includes a comprehensive explanation of the enablers, as well as the history of LSE, the
development process of LEfSE, industrial examples, and other material. Oppenheim, Murman, and Secor (2011)
provide a scholarly article about LEfSE. A short summary was also published by Oppenheim in 2009.
References
Works Cited
Lean Systems Engineering Working Group. 2009. "Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering." Accessed 13 January
2016 at http:/ / www. lean-systems-engineering. org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2012/ 07/
Lean-Enablers-for-SE-Version-1_03-.pdf.
Lean Systems Engineering Working Group. 2009. "Quick Reference Guide Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering."
Accessed 13 January 2016 at http:/ / www. lean-systems-engineering. org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2012/ 07/
LEfSE-Quick-Reference-Guide-8-pages.pdf.
Oppenheim, B.W. 2009. "Process Replication: Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering." CrossTalk, The Journal of
Defense Software Engineering. July/August 2009.
Oppenheim, B.W. 2011. Lean for Systems Engineering, with Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering. Hoboken, NJ,
USA: Wiley.
Oppenheim, B.W., E.M. Murman, and D. Secor. 2011. "Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering." Journal of Systems
Engineering. 1(14).
Womack, J.P. 2003. Lean Thinking. Columbus, OH, USA: Free Press.
Primary References
Lean Systems Engineering Working Group. 2009. "Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering." Accessed 13 January
2016 athttp:/ / www. lean-systems-engineering. org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2012/ 07/
Lean-Enablers-for-SE-Version-1_03-.pdf.
Oppenheim, B., E. Murman, and D. Sekor. 2010. "Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering." Systems Engineering.
14(1). Accessed 13 January 2016. Available at http:/ / www. lean-systems-engineering. org/ wp-content/ uploads/
2012/07/LEfSE-JSE-compressed.pdf.
Lean Enterprise Institute. 2009. "Principles of Lean." Accessed 1 March 2012 at http:/ / www. lean. org/ WhatsLean/
Principles.cfm.

358

Management
Systems Engineering Management

Lead Authors: Ray Madachy, Garry Roedler
This knowledge area is about managing the resources and assets allocated to perform systems engineering, often in
the context of a project or a service, but sometimes in the context of a less well-defined activity. Systems engineering
management is distinguished from general project management by its focus on the technical or engineering aspects
of a project. SEM also encompasses exploratory research and development (R&D) activities at the enterprise level in
commercial or government operations.
Topics
Each part of the SEBoK is composed of knowledge areas (KAs). Each KA groups topics together around a theme
related to the overall subject of the part. This KA contains the following topics:
• Planning
• Assessment and Control
• Risk Management
• Measurement
• Decision Management
• Configuration Management
• Information Management
• Quality Management
Discussion
Implementing systems engineering (SE) requires the coordination of technical and managerial endeavors. Success
with the technical is not possible in the absence of the managerial. Management provides the planning,
organizational structure, collaborative environment, and program controls to ensure that stakeholder needs are met.
The Venn diagram below provides some context for thinking about SEM. It shows that some functions are managed
within the SE function, while others are managed in collaboration with the management of systems implementation
and with overall project and systems management.
Figure 1. Systems Engineering Management Boundaries. (SEBoK Original)
There is no one-size-fits-all way to define the details of where SEM functions are performed. An in-company SE
organization does not run its own accounting system, but relies on the corporate management organization for this
aspect of SEM. A company performing only SE does include the accounting functions as part of SEM. In all cases,
the managers of the SE function must be actively involved in the management of all the activities within the SE
system boundary, including working out what collaborative arrangements best fit their situation. They must also
remain aware of management events in their environment outside the system boundary that may affect their ability to
perform. Part 6 of the SEBoK includes relevant knowledge areas for collaborative management, including Systems
Engineering and Software Engineering, Systems Engineering and Project Management, Systems Engineering and
Industrial Engineering, Systems Engineering and Procurement/Acquisition, and Systems Engineering and Specialty
Engineering.
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
Blanchard, B.S. 2004. Systems Engineering Management, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Sage, A.P. and W. Rouse. 2009. Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management, 2nd Ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
John Wiley and Sons.
None.

Technical Planning
Lead Authors: Ray Madachy, Garry Roedler, Brian Wells
Planning is an important aspect of systems engineering management (SEM). Systems engineering (SE) planning is
performed concurrently and collaboratively with project planning. It involves developing and integrating technical
plans to achieve the technical project objectives within the resource constraints and risk thresholds. The planning
involves the success-critical stakeholders to ensure that necessary tasks are defined with the right timing in the life
cycle in order to manage acceptable risks levels, meet schedules, and avoid costly omissions.
SE Planning Process Overview

SE planning provides the following elements:
• Definition of the project from a technical perspective.
• Definition or tailoring of engineering processes, practices, methods, and supporting enabling environments to be
used to develop products or services, as well as plans for transition and implementation of the products or
services, as required by agreements.
• Definition of the technical organizational, personnel, and team functions and responsibilities, as well as all
disciplines required during the project life cycle.
• Definition of the appropriate life cycle model or approach for the products or services.
• Definition and timing of technical reviews, product or service assessments, and control mechanisms across the
life cycle, including the success criteria such as cost, schedule, and technical performance at identified project
milestones.
• Estimation of technical cost and schedule based on the effort needed to meet the requirements; this estimation
becomes input to project cost and schedule planning.
• Determination of critical technologies, as well as the associated risks and actions needed to manage and transition
these technologies.
• Identification of linkages to other project management efforts.
• Documentation of and commitment to the technical planning.
Scope
SE planning begins with analyzing the scope of technical work to be performed and gaining an understanding the
constraints, risks, and objectives that define and bound the solution space for the product or service. The planning
includes estimating the size of the work products, establishing a schedule (or integrating the technical tasks into the
project schedule), identification of risks, and negotiating commitments. Iteration of these planning tasks may be
necessary to establish a balanced plan with respect to cost, schedule, technical performance, and quality. The
planning continues to evolve with each successive life cycle phase of the project (NASA 2007, 1-360; SEI 1995, 12).
SE planning addresses all programmatic and technical elements of the project to ensure a comprehensive and
integrated plan for all of the project's technical aspects and should account for the full scope of technical activities,
including system development and definition, risk management, quality management, configuration management,
measurement, information management, production, verification and testing, integration, validation, and deployment.
SE planning integrates all SE functions to ensure that plans, requirements, operational concepts, and architectures are
consistent and feasible.
The scope of planning can vary from planning a specific task to developing a major technical plan. The integrated
planning effort will determine what level of planning and accompanying documentation is appropriate for the
project.
Integration
The integration of each plan with other higher-level, peer, or subordinate plans is an essential part of SE planning.
For the technical effort, the systems engineering management plan (SEMP), also frequently reffered to as the
systems engineering plan (SEP), is the highest level technical plan. It is subordinate to the project plan and often has
a number of subordinate technical plans providing detail on specific technical focus areas (INCOSE 2011, sec.
5.1.2.2; NASA 2007, appendix J).
In U.S. defense work, the terms SEP and SEMP are not interchangeable. The SEP is a high-level plan that is made
before the system acquisition and development begins. It is written by the government customer. The SEMP is the
specific development plan written by the developer (or contractor). In this context, intent, and content of these
documents are quite different. For example, a SEP will have an acquisition plan that would not be included in a
SEMP. Figure 1 below shows the SEMP and integrated plans.
Figure 1. SEMP and Integrated Plans. (SEBoK Original)
Task planning identifies the specific work products, deliverables, and success criteria for systems engineering efforts
in support of integrated planning and project objectives. The success criteria are defined in terms of cost, schedule,
and technical performance at identified project milestones. Detailed task planning identifies specific resource
requirements (e.g., skills, equipment, facilities, and funding) as a function of time and project milestones.
SE planning is accomplished by both the acquirer and supplier and the activities for SE planning are performed in
the context of the respective enterprise. The activities establish and identify relevant policies and procedures for
managing and executing the project management and technical effort, identifying the management and technical
tasks, their interdependencies, risks, and opportunities, and providing estimates of needed resources/budgets. Plans
are updated and refined throughout the development process based on status updates and evolving project
requirements (SEI 2007).
Linkages to Other Systems Engineering Management Topics

The project planning process is closely coupled with the measurement, assessment and control, decision
management, and risk management processes.
The measurement process provides inputs for estimation models. Estimates and other products from planning are
used in decision management. SE assessment and control processes use planning results for setting milestones and
assessing progress. Risk management uses the planning cost models, schedule estimates, and uncertainty
distributions to support quantitative risk analysis (as desired).
Additionally, planning needs to use the outputs from assessment and control as well as risk management to ensure
corrective actions have been accounted for in planning future activities. The planning may need to be updated based
on results from technical reviews (from assessment and control) addressing issues pertaining to: measurement,
problems that were identified during the performance of risk management activities, or decisions made as a result of
the decision management activities (INCOSE 2010, sec. 6.1).
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing SE planning are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Major Pitfalls with Planning. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
Incomplete and Inadequate SE planning causes significant adverse impacts on all other engineering activities. Although one may be tempted to
Rushed Planning save time by rushing the planning, inadequate planning can create additional costs and interfere with the schedule due to
planning omissions, lack of detail, lack of integration of efforts, infeasible cost and schedules, etc.
Inexperienced Staff Lack of highly experienced engineering staff members, especially in similar projects, will likely result in inadequate planning.
Less experienced engineers are often assigned significant roles in the SE planning; however, they may not have the
appropriate judgment to lay out realistic and achievable plans. It is essential to assign the SE planning tasks to those with a
good amount of relevant experience.
Good Practices
Some good practices gathered from the references are in Table 2.
Table 2. Proven Practices with Planning. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
Use Multiple Get technical resources from all disciplines involved in the planning process.
Disciplines
Early Conflict Resolve schedule and resource conflicts early.

Resolution
Task Independence Tasks should be as independent as possible.
Define Define task interdependencies, using dependency networks or other approaches.

Interdependencies
Risk Management Integrate risk management with the SE planning to identify areas that require special attention and/or trades.
Management The amount of management reserve should be based on the risk associated with the plan.
Reserve
Use Historical Data Use historical data for estimates and adjust for differences in the project.
Consider Lead Identify lead times and ensure that you account for them in the planning (e.g., the development of analytical tools).
Times
Update Plans Prepare to update plans as additional information becomes available or changes are needed.
Use IPDTs An integrated product development team (IPDT) (or integrated product team (IPT)) is often useful to ensure adequate
communication across the necessary disciplines, timely integration of all design considerations, as well as integration, testing,
and consideration of the full range of risks that need to be addressed. Although there are some issues that need to be managed
with them, IPDTs tend to break down the communication and knowledge stovepipes that often exist.
Additional good practices can be found in the Systems Engineering Guidebook for Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS), NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, and Systems and
Software Engineering - Life Cycle Processes - Project Management (Caltrans and USDOT 2005, 278; NASA
December 2007, 1-360, sec. 6.1; INCOSE 2011, sec. 5.1; ISO/IEC/IEEE 2009, Clause 6.1).
References
Works Cited
Caltrans and USDOT. 2005. Systems Engineering Guidebook for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), version
1.1. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Reserach &
Innovation/U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), SEG for ITS 1.1.
DAU. 2010. Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG). Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University
(DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense, February 19.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. Systems and Software Engineering - Life Cycle Processes - Project Management. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE 16326:2009(E).
NASA. 2007. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space
SEI. 1995. A systems engineering capability maturity model. Version 1.1. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software
Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-95-MM-003.
Primary References
1.1. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Reserach &
(DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
NASA. 2007. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. Washington, D.C., USA: National Aeronautics and Space
SEI. 1995. A Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model, version 1.1. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software
Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-95-MM-003.
SEI. 2007. Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for Development, version 1.2, measurement and analysis
process area. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
Boehm, B., C. Abts, A.W. Brown, S. Chulani, B.K. Clark, E. Horowitz, R. Madachy, D.J. Reifer, B. Steece. 2000.
Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall
DeMarco, T. and T. Lister. 2003. Waltzing with Bears; Managing Risks on Software Projects. New York, NY, USA:
Dorset House.
Engineering Effort in Complex Systems. Saarbrücken,Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller

Assessment and Control

Lead Authors: Ray Madachy, Andy Pickard, Garry Roedler, Contributing Author: Richard Turner
The purpose of systems engineering assessment and control (SEAC) is to provide adequate visibility into the
project’s actual technical progress and risks with respect to the technical plans (i.e., systems engineering
management plan (SEMP) or systems engineering plan (SEP) and subordinate plans). The visibility allows the
project team to take timely preventive action when disruptive trends are recognized or corrective action when
performance deviates beyond established thresholds or expected values. SEAC includes preparing for and
conducting reviews and audits to monitor performance. The results of the reviews and measurement analyses are
used to identify and record findings/discrepancies and may lead to causal analysis and corrective/preventive action
plans. Action plans are implemented, tracked, and monitored to closure. (NASA 2007, Section 6.7; SEG-ITS, 2009,
Section 3.9.3, 3.9.10; INCOSE, 2010, Clause 6.2; SEI, 2007)
Systems Engineering Assessment and Control Process Overview

The SEAC process involves determining and initiating the appropriate handling strategies and actions for findings
and/or discrepancies that are uncovered in the enterprise, infrastructure, or life cycle activities associated with the
project. Analysis of the causes of the findings/discrepancies aids in the determination of appropriate handling
strategies. Implementation of approved preventive, corrective, or improvement actions ensures satisfactory
completion of the project within planned technical, schedule, and cost objectives. Potential action plans for findings
and/or discrepancies are reviewed in the context of the overall set of actions and priorities in order to optimize the
benefits to the project and/or organization. Interrelated items are analyzed together to obtain a consistent and
cost-effective resolution.
The SEAC process includes the following steps:
• monitor and review technical performance and resource use against plans
• monitor technical risk, escalate significant risks to the project risk register and seek project funding to execute risk
mitigation plans
• hold technical reviews and report outcomes at the project reviews
• analyze issues and determine appropriate actions
• manage actions to closure
• hold a post-delivery assessment (also known as a post-project review) to capture knowledge associated with the
project (this may be a separate technical assessment or it may be conducted as part of the project assessment and
control process).
The following activities are normally conducted as part of a project assessment and control process:
• authorization, release and closure of work
• monitor project performance and resource usage against plan
• monitor project risk and authorize expenditure of project funds to execute risk mitigation plans
• hold project reviews
• analyze issues and determine appropriate actions
• manage actions to closure
• hold a post-delivery assessment (also known as a post-project review) to capture knowledge associated with the
project
Examples of major technical reviews used in SEAC are shown in Table 1 from DAU (2010).
Table 1. Major Technical Review Examples (DAU 2012). Released by Defense Acquisition
University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
Name Description
Alternative Systems A multi-disciplined review to ensure the resulting set of requirements agrees with the customers' needs and expectations.
Review
Critical Design A multi-disciplined review establishing the initial product baseline to ensure that the system under review has a reasonable
Review (CDR) expectation of satisfying the requirements of the capability development document within the currently allocated budget and
schedule.
Functional Formal examination of the as-tested characteristics of a configuration item (hardware and software) with the objective of
Configuration Audit verifying that actual performance complies with design and interface requirements in the functional baseline.
In-Service Review A multi-disciplined product and process assessment that is performed to ensure that the system under review is operationally
employed with well-understood and managed risk.
Initial Technical A multi-disciplined review that supports a program's initial program objective memorandum submission.
Review
Integrated Baseline A joint assessment conducted by the government program manager and the contractor to establish the performance
Review measurement baseline.
Operational Test A multi-disciplined product and process assessment to ensure that the system can proceed into initial operational test and
Readiness Review evaluation with a high probability of success, and also that the system is effective and suitable for service introduction.
Production The examination of a program to determine if the design is ready for production and if the prime contractor and major
Readiness Review subcontractors have accomplished adequate production planning without incurring unacceptable risks that will breach
(PRR) thresholds of schedule, performance, cost, or other established criteria.
Physical An examination of the actual configuration of an item being produced around the time of the full-rate production decision.
Configuration Audit
Preliminary Design A technical assessment establishing the physically allocated baseline to ensure that the system under review has a reasonable
Review (PDR) expectation of being judged operationally effective and suitable.
System Functional A multi-disciplined review to ensure that the system's functional baseline is established and has a reasonable expectation of
Review (SFR) satisfying the requirements of the initial capabilities document or draft capability development document within the currently
allocated budget and schedule.
System A multi-disciplined review to ensure that the system under review can proceed into initial systems development and that all
Requirements system requirements and performance requirements derived from the initial capabilities document or draft capability
Review (SRR) development document are defined and testable, as well as being consistent with cost, schedule, risk, technology readiness,
and other system constraints.
System Verification A multi-disciplined product and process assessment to ensure the system under review can proceed into low-rate initial
Review (SVR) production and full-rate production within cost (program budget), schedule (program schedule), risk, and other system
constraints.
Technology A systematic, metrics-based process that assesses the maturity of critical technology elements, such as sustainment drivers.
Readiness
Assessment
Test Readiness A multi-disciplined review designed to ensure that the subsystem or system under review is ready to proceed into formal
Review (TRR) testing.

The SE assessment and control process is closely coupled with the measurement, planning, decision management,
and risk management processes. The measurement process provides indicators for comparing actuals to plans.
Planning provides estimates and milestones that constitute plans for monitoring as well as the project plan, which
uses measurements to monitor progress. Decision management uses the results of project monitoring as decision
criteria for making control decisions.
Key pitfalls and good practices related to SEAC are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing SE assessment and control are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Major Pitfalls with Assessment and Control. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
No Measurement Since the assessment and control activities are highly dependent on insightful measurement information, it is usually ineffective
to proceed independently from the measurement efforts - what you get is what you measure.
"Something in Some things are easier to measure than others - for instance, delivery to cost and schedule. Don't focus on these and neglect
Time" Culture harder things to measure like quality of the system. Avoid a "something in time" culture where meeting the schedule takes
priority over everything else, but what is delivered is not fit for purpose, resulting in the need to rework the project.
No Teeth Make sure that the technical review gates have "teeth". Sometimes the project manager is given authority (or can appeal to
someone with authority) to over-ride a gate decision and allow work to proceed, even when the gate has exposed significant
issues with the technical quality of the system or associated work products. This is a major risk if the organization is strongly
schedule-driven; it can't afford the time to do it right, but somehow it finds the time to do it again (rework).
Too Early Don't baseline requirements or designs too early. Often there is strong pressure to baseline system requirements and designs
Baselining before they are fully understood or agreed, in order to start subsystem or component development. This just guarantees high
levels of rework.
Good Practices
Some good practices gathered from the references are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Proven Practices with Assessment and Control. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
Independence Provide independent (from customer) assessment and recommendations on resources, schedule, technical status, and risk
based on experience and trend analysis.
Peer Reviews Use peer reviews to ensure the quality of a product’s work before they are submitted for gate review.
Accept Uncertainty Communicate uncertainties in requirements or designs and accept that uncertainty is a normal part of developing a
system.
Risk Mitigation Plans Do not penalize a project at gate review if they admit uncertainty in requirements - ask for their risk mitigation plan to
manage the uncertainty.
Just In-Time Baselining Baseline requirements and designs only when you need to - when other work is committed based on the stability of the
requirement or design. If work must start and the requirement or design is still uncertain, consider how you can build
robustness into the system to handle the uncertainty with minimum rework.
Communication Document and communicate status findings and recommendations to stakeholders.
Full Visibility Ensure that action items and action-item status, as well as other key status items, are visible to all project participants.
Leverage Previous Root When performing root cause analysis, take into account the root cause and resolution data documented in previous related
Cause Analysis findings/discrepancies.
Concurrent Plan and perform assessment and control concurrently with the activities for Measurement and Risk Management.
Management
Lessons Learned and Hold post-delivery assessments or post-project reviews to capture knowledge associated with the project – e.g., to
Post-Mortems augment and improve estimation models, lessons learned databases, gate review checklists, etc.
Additional good practices can be found in INCOSE (2010, Clause 6.2), SEG-ITS (2009, Sections 3.9.3 and 3.9.10),
INCOSE (2010, Section 5.2.1.5), and NASA (2007, Section 6.7).
References
Works Cited
1.1. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Research &
(DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). February 19, 2010.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
NASA. 2007. Systems Engineering Handbook. Washington, DC, USA: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), December 2007. NASA/SP-2007-6105.
SEI. 2007. "Measurement and Analysis Process Area," in Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for
Development, version 1.2. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University
(CMU).
Primary References
Caltrans and USDOT. 2005. [[Systems Engineering Guidebook for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)],]
version 1.1. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Research &
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
SEI. 2007. "Measurement and Analysis Process Area," in Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for
(CMU).
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. ISO/IEC/IEEE 16326|Systems and Software Engineering - Life Cycle Processes - Project
Management. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE
16326:2009(E).

Decision Management
Lead Author: Ray Madachy, Contributing Authors: Garry Roedler, Greg Parnell, Scott Jackson
Many systems engineering decisions are difficult because they include numerous stakeholders, multiple competing
objectives, substantial uncertainty, and significant consequences. In these cases, good decision making requires a
formal decision management process. The purpose of the decision management process is:
“…to provide a structured, analytical framework for objectively identifying, characterizing and
evaluating a set of alternatives for a decision at any point in the life cycle and select the most beneficial
course of action.”(ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288)
Decision situations (opportunities) are commonly encountered throughout a system’s lifecycle. The decision
management method most commonly employed by systems engineers is the trade study. Trade studies aim to define,
measure, and assess shareholder and stakeholder value to facilitate the decision maker’s search for an alternative that
represents the best balance of competing objectives. By providing techniques for decomposing a trade decision into
logical segments and then synthesizing the parts into a coherent whole, a decision management process allows the
decision maker to work within human cognitive limits without oversimplifying the problem. Furthermore, by
decomposing the overall decision problem, experts can provide assessments of alternatives in their area of expertise.
Decision Management Process

The decision analysis process is depicted in Figure 1 below. The decision management process is based on several
best practices, including:
• Utilizing sound mathematical technique of decision analysis for trade studies. Parnell (2009) provided a list of
decision analysis concepts and techniques.
• Developing one master decision model, followed by its refinement, update, and use, as required for trade studies
throughout the system life cycle.
• Using Value-Focused Thinking (Keeney 1992) to create better alternatives.
• Identifying uncertainty and assessing risks for each decision.
Figure 1. Decision Management Process (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Matthew
Cilli who prepared image for the INCOSE Decision Analysis Working Group (DAWG). All other
The center of the diagram shows the five trade space objectives (listed clockwise): Performance, Growth Potential,
Schedule, Development & Procurement Costs, and Sustainment Costs . The ten blue arrows represent the decision
management process activities and the white text within the green ring represents SE process elements. Interactions
are represented by the small, dotted green or blue arrows. The decision analysis process is an iterative process. A
hypothetical UAV decision problem is used to illustrate each of the activities in the following sections.
Framing and Tailoring the Decision

To ensure the decision team fully understands the decision context, the analyst should describe the system baseline,
boundaries and interfaces. The decision context includes: the system definition, the life cycle stage, decision
milestones, a list of decision makers and stakeholders, and available resources. The best practice is to identify a
decision problem statement that defines the decision in terms of the system life cycle.
Developing Objectives and Measures

Defining how an important decision will be made is difficult. As Keeney (2002) puts it:
Most important decisions involve multiple objectives, and usually with multiple-objective decisions, you
can't have it all. You will have to accept less achievement in terms of some objectives in order to achieve
more on other objectives. But how much less would you accept to achieve how much more?
The first step is to develop objectives and measures using interviews and focus groups with subject matter experts
(SMEs) and stakeholders. For systems engineering trade-off analyses, stakeholder value often includes competing
objectives of performance, development schedule, unit cost, support costs, and growth potential. For corporate
decisions, shareholder value would also be added to this list. For performance, a functional decomposition can help
generate a thorough set of potential objectives. Test this initial list of fundamental objectives by checking that each
fundamental objective is essential and controllable and that the set of objectives is complete, non-redundant, concise,
specific, and understandable (Edwards et al. 2007). Figure 2 provides an example of an objectives hierarchy.
Figure 2. Fundamental Objectives Hierarchy (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Matthew Cilli who prepared image for the INCOSE
Decision Analysis Working Group (DAWG). All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
For each objective, a measure must be defined to assess the value of each alternative for that objective. A measure
(attribute, criterion, and metric) must be unambiguous, comprehensive, direct, operational, and understandable
(Keeney & Gregory 2005). A defining feature of multi-objective decision analysis is the transformation from
measure space to value space. This transformation is performed by a value function which shows returns to scale on
the measure range. When creating a value function, the walk-away point on the measure scale (x-axis) must be
ascertained and mapped to a 0 value on the value scale (y-axis). A walk-away point is the measure score where
regardless of how well an alternative performs in other measures, the decision maker will walk away from the
alternative. He or she does this through working with the user, finding the measure score beyond, at which point an
alternative provides no additional value, and labeling it "stretch goal" (ideal) and then mapping it to 100 (or 1 and
10) on the value scale (y-axis). Figure 3 provides the most common value curve shapes. The rationale for the shape
of the value functions should be documented for traceability and defensibility (Parnell et al. 2011).
Figure 3. Value Function Examples (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Matthew Cilli who prepared image for the INCOSE Decision
Analysis Working Group (DAWG). All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
The mathematics of multiple objective decision analysis (MODA) requires that the weights depend on importance of
the measure and the range of the measure (walk away to stretch goal). A useful tool for determining priority
weighting is the swing weight matrix (Parnell et al. 2011). For each measure, consider its importance through
determining whether the measure corresponds to a defining, critical, or enabling function and consider the gap
between the current capability and the desired capability; finally, put the name of the measure in the appropriate cell
of the matrix (Figure 4). The highest priority weighting is placed in the upper-left corner and assigned an
unnormalized weight of 100. The unnormalized weights are monotonically decreasing to the right and down the
matrix. Swing weights are then assessed by comparing them to the most important value measure or another assessed
measure. The swing weights are normalized to sum to one for the additive value model used to calculate value in a
subsequent section.
Figure 4. Swing Weight Matrix (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Gregory Parnell who prepared image for the INCOSE Decision
Generating Creative Alternatives

To help generate a creative and comprehensive set of alternatives that span the decision space, consider developing
an alternative generation table (also called a morphological box) (Buede, 2009; Parnell et al. 2011). It is a best
practice to establish a meaningful product structure for the system and to be reported in all decision presentations
(Figure 5).
Figure 5. Descriptions of Alternatives (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Matthew Cilli who prepared image for the INCOSE
Assessing Alternatives via Deterministic Analysis

With objectives and measures established and alternatives having been defined, the decision team should engage
SMEs, equipped with operational data, test data, simulations, models, and expert knowledge. Scores are best
captured on scoring sheets for each alternative/measure combination which document the source and rationale.
Figure 6 provides a summary of the scores.
Figure 6. Alternative Scores (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Richard Swanson who prepared image for the INCOSE Decision
Note that in addition to identified alternatives, the score matrix includes a row for the ideal alternative. The ideal is a
tool for value-focused thinking, which will be covered later.
Synthesizing Results
Next, one can transform the scores into a value table, by using the value functions developed previously. A color
heat map can be useful to visualize value tradeoffs between alternatives and identify where alternatives need
improvement (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Value Scorecard with Heat Map (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Richard Swanson who prepared image for the INCOSE
The additive value model uses the following equation to calculate each alternative’s value:
where
The value component chart (Figure 8) shows the total value and the weighted value measure contribution of each
alternative (Parnell et al. 2011).
Figure 8. Value Component Graph (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Richard Swanson who prepared image for the INCOSE
The heart of a decision management process for system engineering trade off analysis is the ability to assess all
dimensions of shareholder and stakeholder value. The stakeholder value scatter plot in Figure 9 shows five
dimensions: unit cost, performance, development risk, growth potential, and operation and support costs for all
alternatives.
Figure 9. Example of a Stakeholder Value Scatterplot (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Richard Swanson who prepared image for
the INCOSE Decision Analysis Working Group (DAWG). All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Each system alternative is represented by a scatter plot marker (Figure 9). An alternative’s unit cost and performance
value are indicated by x and y positions respectively. An alternative’s development risk is indicated by the color of
the marker (green = low, yellow= medium, red = high), while the growth potential is shown as the number of hats
above the circular marker (1 hat = low, 2 hats = moderate, 3 hats = high).
Identifying Uncertainty and Conducting Probabilistic Analysis

As part of the assessment, the SME should discuss the potential uncertainty of the independent variables. The
independent variables are the variables that impact one or more scores; the scores that are independent scores. Many
times the SME can assess an upper, nominal, and lower bound by assuming low, moderate, and high performance.
Using this data, a Monte Carlo Simulation summarizes the impact of the uncertainties and can identify the
uncertainties that have the most impact on the decision.
Accessing Impact of Uncertainty - Analyzing Risk and Sensitivity

Decision analysis uses many forms of sensitivity analysis including line diagrams, tornado diagrams, waterfall
diagrams and several uncertainty analyses including Monte Carlo Simulation, decision trees, and influence diagrams
(Parnell et al. 2013). A line diagram is used to show the sensitivity to the swing weight judgment (Parnell et al.
2011). Figure 10 shows the results of a Monte Carlo Simulation of performance value.
Figure 10. Uncertainty on Performance Value from Monte Carlo Simulation (INCOSE DAWG 2013). Permission granted by Matthew
Cilli who prepared image for the INCOSE Decision Analysis Working Group (DAWG). All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Improving Alternatives
Mining the data generated for the alternatives will likely reveal opportunities to modify some design choices to claim
untapped value and/or reduce risk. Taking advantage of initial findings to generate new and creative alternatives
starts the process of transforming the decision process from "alternative-focused thinking" to "value-focused
thinking" (Keeney 1993).
Communicating Tradeoffs
This is the point in the process where the decision analysis team identifies key observations about tradeoffs and the
important uncertainties and risks.
Presenting Recommendations and Implementing Action Plan

It is often helpful to describe the recommendation(s) in the form of a clearly-worded, actionable task-list in order to
increase the likelihood of the decision implementation. Reports are important for historical traceability and future
decisions. Take the time and effort to create a comprehensive, high-quality report detailing study findings and
supporting rationale. Consider static paper reports augmented with dynamic hyper-linked e-reports.
The Cognitive Bias Effect on Decisions

Research by (Kahneman 2011) and (Thaler and Sunstein 2008) has concluded that cognitive bias can seriously
distort decisions made by any decision maker. Both Kahneman and Thaler were awarded the Nobel prize for their
work. The cause of this distortion is called the cognitive bias. These distorted decisions have contributed to major
catastrophes, such as Challenger and Columbia. Other sources attributing major catastrophes are (Murata, Nakamura,
and Karwowski 2015) and (Murata 2017).
(Kahneman 2011) and (Thaler and Sunstein 2008) have identified a large number of individual biases, the most
well-known of which is the confirmation bias. This bias states that humans have a tendency to interpret new
evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. Regarding mitigation of theses biases, there is general
agreement that self-mitigation by the decision-maker is not feasible for most biases. (Thaler and Sunstein 2008)
provide methods to influence the mitigation of most biases. They refer to these influences as “nudges”.
Considering cognitive biases in a systems engineering is discussed by (Jackson 2017, Jackson and Harel 2017), and
(Jackson 2018). The primary theme of these references is that rational decisions are rarely possible and that cognitive
bias must be taken into account.
Decisions with Cognitive Bias

According to (INCOSE 2015) ideal decisions are made while “objectively identifying, characterizing, and evaluating
a set of alternatives for a decision…” Research in the field of behavioral economics has shown that these decisions
can be distorted by a phenomenon known as cognitive bias. Furthermore, most decision makers are unaware of these
biases. The literature also provides methods for mitigating these biases.
According to (Haselton, Nettle, and Andrews 2005, p. 2) a cognitive bias represents a situation in which “human
cognition reliably produces representations that are systematically distorted compared to some aspect of objective
reality.” Cognitive biases are typically stimulated by emotion and prior belief. The literature reveals large numbers of
cognitive biases of which the following three are typical:
1. The rankism bias. According to (Fuller 2011), rankism is simply the idea that persons of higher rank in an
organization are better able to assert their authority over persons of lower rank regardless of the decision
involved. Rankism frequently occurs in aircraft cockpits. According to (McCreary et al. 1998), rankism was a
factor in the famous Tenerife disaster.
2. The complacency bias. According to (Leveson 1995, pp. 54-55), complacency is the disregard for safety and the
belief that current safety measures are adequate. According to (Leveson 1995, pp. 54-55), complacency played a
role in the Three Mile Island and Bhopal disasters.
3. The optimism bias. According to (Leveson 1995, pp. 54-55), famous physicist Richard Feynman states that
NASA “exaggerates the reliability of the system.” This is an example of the optimism bias.
Mitigation of Cognitive Bias

Various sources have suggested methods to mitigate the effects of cognitive bias. Following are some of the major
ones.
1. Independent Review. The idea of independent review is that advice on decisions should come from an outside
body, called by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) (NASA 2003, 227) as the Independent
Technical Authority (ITA). This authority must be both organizationally and financially independent of the
program in question. That is, the ITA cannot be subordinate to the program manager.
2. Crew Resource Management. Following a period of high accident rate, several airlines have adopted the crew
resource management (CRM) method. The primary purposes of this method are first to assure that all crew
members do their job properly and secondly that they communicate with the pilot effectively when they have a
concern. The impetus for this method was the judgment that many pilots were experiencing the rankism bias or
were preoccupied with other tasks and simple did not understand the concerns of the other crew members. The
result is that this strategy has been successful, and that the accident rate has fallen.
3. The Premortem. (Kahneman 2011) (pp. 264-265) suggests this method of nudging in an organizational context.
This method, like others, requires a certain amount of willingness on the part of the decision-maker to participate
in this process. It calls for decision-makers to surround themselves with trusted experts in advance of major
decisions. According to Kahneman the primary job of the experts is to present the negative argument against any
decision. For example, the decision-maker should not authorize the launch now, perhaps later.
References
Works Cited
Buede, D.M. 2009. The engineering design of systems: Models and methods. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Edwards, W., R.F. Miles Jr., and D. Von Winterfeldt. 2007. Advances In Decision Analysis: From Foundations to
Applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fuller, R.W. 2011. "What is Rankism and Why to We "Do" It?" Psychology Today. 25 May 2011. https:/ / www.
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/somebodies-and-nobodies/201002/what-is-rankism-and-why-do-we-do-it
Haselton, M.G., D. Nettle, and P.W. Andrews. 2005. "The Evolution of Cognitive Bias." Handbook of Psychology.
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook, 4th Ed. Edited by D.D. Walden, G.J. Roedler, K.J. Forsberg, R.D.
Hamelin, and T.M. Shortell. San Diego, CA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
Kahneman, D. 2011. "Thinking Fast and Slow." New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives - Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Keeney, R.L. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision-Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Keeney, R.L. 1993. "Creativity in MS/OR: Value-focused thinking—Creativity directed toward decision making."
Interfaces, 23(3), p.62–67.
Leveson, N. 1995. Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
McCreary, J., M. Pollard, K. Stevenson, and M.B. Wilson. 1998. "Human Factors: Tenerife Revisited." Journal of
Air Transportation World Wide. 3(1).
Murata, A. 2017. "Cultural Difference and Cognitive Biases as a Trigger of Critical Crashes or Disasters - Evidence
from Case Studies of Human Factors Analysis." Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science. 7:299-415.
Murata, A., T. Nakamura, and W. Karwowski. 2015. "Influences of Cognitive Biases in Distorting Decision Making
and Leading to Critical Unfavorable Incidents." Safety. 1:44-58.
Parnell, G.S. 2009. "Decision Analysis in One Chart," Decision Line, Newsletter of the Decision Sciences Institute.
May 2009.
Parnell, G.S., P.J. Driscoll, and D.L Henderson (eds). 2011. Decision Making for Systems Engineering and
Management, 2nd ed. Wiley Series in Systems Engineering. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons Inc.
Parnell, G.S., T. Bresnick, S. Tani, and E. Johnson. 2013. Handbook of Decision Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley &
Sons.
Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.
New York: Penguin Books.
Primary References
Buede, D.M. 2004. "On Trade Studies." Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Council on Systems
Engineering International Symposium, 20-24 June, 2004, Toulouse, France.
Keeney, R.L. 2004. "Making Better Decision Makers." Decision Analysis, 1(4), pp.193–204.
Keeney, R.L. & R.S. Gregory. 2005. "Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives". Operations
Research, 53(1), pp.1–11.
Kirkwood, C.W. 1996. Strategic Decision Making: Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Spreadsheets. Belmont,
California: Duxbury Press.
Buede, D.M. and R.W. Choisser. 1992. "Providing an Analytic Structure for Key System Design Choices." Journal
of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 1(1), pp.17–27.
Felix, A. 2004. "Standard Approach to Trade Studies." Proceedings of the International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE) Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference, November 2-4 2004, Arlington, VA.
Felix, A. 2005. "How the Pro-Active Program (Project) Manager Uses a Systems Engineer’s Trade Study as a
Management Tool, and not just a Decision Making Process." Proceedings of the International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 10-15, 2005, Rochester, NY.
Jackson, S. 2017. "Irrationality in Decision Making: A Systems Engineering Perspective." INCOSE Insight, 74.
Jackson, S. 2018. "Cognitive Bias: A Game-Changer for Decision Management?" INCOSE Insight, 41-42.
Jackson, S. and A. Harel. 2017. "Systems Engineering Decision Analysis can benefit from Added Consideration of
Cognitive Sciences." Systems Engineering. 55, 19 July.
Miller, G.A. 1956. "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing
Information." Psychological Review, 63(2), p.81.
Ross, A.M. and D.E. Hastings. 2005. "Tradespace Exploration Paradigm." Proceedings of the International Council
on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 10-15, 2005, Rochester, NY.
Sproles, N. 2002. "Formulating Measures of Effectiveness." Systems Engineering", 5(4), p. 253-263.
Silletto, H. 2005. "Some Really Useful Principles: A new look at the scope and boundaries of systems engineering."
Proceedings of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 10-15,
2005, Rochester, NY.
Ullman, D.G. and B.P. Spiegel. 2006. "Trade Studies with Uncertain Information." Proceedings of the International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 9-13, 2006, Orlando, FL.

Risk Management
Lead Authors: Ed Conrow, Ray Madachy, Garry Roedler, Contributing Author: Richard Turner
The purpose of risk management is to reduce potential risks to an acceptable level before they occur, throughout the
life of the product or project. Risk management is a continuous, forward-looking process that is applied to anticipate
and avert risks that may adversely impact the project, and can be considered both a project management and a
systems engineering process. A balance must be achieved on each project in terms of overall risk management
ownership, implementation, and day-to-day responsibility between these two top-level processes.
For the SEBoK, risk management falls under the umbrella of Systems Engineering Management, though the wider
body of risk literature is explored below.
Risk Management Process Overview

Risk is a measure of the potential inability to achieve overall program objectives within defined cost, schedule, and
technical constraints. It has the following two components (DAU 2003a):
1. the probability (or likelihood) of failing to achieve a particular outcome
2. the consequences (or impact) of failing to achieve that outcome
In the domain of catastrophic risk analysis, risk has three components: (1) threat, (2) vulnerability, and (3)
consequence (Willis et al. 2005).
Risk management involves defining a risk management strategy, identifying and analyzing risks, handling selected
risks, and monitoring the progress in reducing risks to an acceptable level (SEI 2010; DoD 2015; DAU 2003a; DAU
2003b; PMI 2013) (Opportunity and opportunity management is briefly discussed below).
The SE risk management process includes the following activities:
• risk planning
• risk identification
• risk analysis
• risk handling
• risk monitoring
ISO/IEC/IEEE 16085 provides a detailed set of risk management activities and tasks which can be utilized in a risk
management process aligned with ISO 31000:2009, Risk management — Principles and Guidelines, and ISO Guide
73:2009,
Risk management — Vocabulary. ISO 9001:2008 standard provides risk-based preventive action requirements in
subclause 8.5.3.
The Risk Management Process section of the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for Systems Life
Cycle Processes and Activities, 4th Edition, provides a comprehensive overview of risk management which is
intended to be consistent with the Risk Management Process section of ISO 15288.
Risk Management 384
Risk Planning
Risk planning establishes and maintains a strategy for identifying, analyzing, handling, and monitoring risks within
the project. The strategy, both the process and its implementation, is documented in a risk management plan (RMP).
The risk management process and its implementation should be tailored to each project and updated as appropriate
throughout the life of the project.The RMP should be transmitted in an appropriate means to the project team and
key stakeholders.
The risk management strategy includes as necessary the risk management process of all supply chain suppliers and
describes how risks from all suppliers will be raised to the next level(s) for incorporation in the project risk process.
The context of the Risk Management process should include a description of stakeholders’ perspectives, risk
categories, and a description (perhaps by reference) of the technical and managerial objectives, assumptions and
constraints. The risk categories include the relevant technical areas of the system and facilitate identification of risks
across the life cycle of the system. As noted in ISO 31000 the aim of this step is to generate a comprehensive list of
risks based on those events that might create, enhance, prevent, degrade, accelerate or delay the achievement of
objectives.
The RMP should contain key risk management information; Conrow (2003) identifies the following as key
components of RMP:
• a project summary
• project acquisition and contracting strategies
• key definitions
• a list of key documents
• process steps
• inputs, tools and techniques, and outputs per process step
• linkages between risk management and other project processes
• key ground rules and assumptions
• risk categories
• buyer and seller roles and responsibilities
• organizational and personnel roles and responsibilities
Generally, the level of detail in an RMP is risk-driven, with simple plans for low risk projects and detailed plans for
high risk projects.
Risk Identification
Risk identification is the process of examining the project products, processes, and requirements to identify and
document candidate risks. Risk identification should be performed continuously at the individual level as well as
through formerly structured events at both regular intervals and following major program changes (e.g., project
initiation, re-baselining, change in acquisition phase, etc.).
Conrow (2009) states that systems engineers should use one or more top-level approaches (e.g., work breakdown
structure (WBS), key processes evaluation, key requirements evaluation, etc.) and one or more lower-level
approaches (e.g., affinity, brainstorming, checklists and taxonomies, examining critical path activities, expert
judgment, Ishikawa diagrams, etc.) in risk identification. For example, lower-level checklists and taxonomies exist
for software risk identification (Conrow and Shishido 1997, 83-89, p. 84; Boehm 1989, 115-125, Carr et al. 1993, p.
A-2) and operational risk identification (Gallagher et al. 2005, p. 4), and have been used on a wide variety of
programs. The top and lower-level approaches are essential but there is no single accepted method — all approaches
should be examined and used as appropriate.
Candidate risk documentation should include the following items where possible, as identified by Conrow (2003
p.198):
Risk Management 385
• risk title
• structured risk description
• applicable risk categories
• potential root causes
• relevant historical information
• responsible individual and manager
It is important to use structured risk descriptions such as an if-then format: if (an event occurs--trigger), then (an
outcome or affect occurs). Another useful construct is a condition (that exists) that leads to a potential consequence
(outcome) (Gluch 1994). These approaches help the analyst to better think through the potential nature of the risk.
Risk analysis and risk handling activities should only be performed on approved risks to ensure the best use of scarce
resources and maintain focus on the correct risks.
Risk Analysis
Risk analysis is the process of systematically evaluating each identified, approved risk to estimate the probability of
occurrence (likelihood) and consequence of occurrence (impact), and then converting the results to a corresponding
risk level or rating.
There is no best analysis approach for a given risk category. Risk scales and a corresponding matrix, simulations,
and probabilistic risk assessments are often used for technical risks, while decision trees, simulations and payoff
matrices are used for cost risk; and simulations are used for schedule risk. Risk analysis approaches are sometimes
grouped into qualitative and quantitative methods. A structured, repeatable methodology should be used in order to
increase analysis accuracy and reduce uncertainty over time.
The most common qualitative method (typically) uses ordinal probability and consequence scales coupled with a risk
matrix (also known as a risk cube or mapping matrix) to convert the resulting values to a risk level. Here, one or
more probability of occurrence scales, coupled with three consequences of occurrence scales (cost, performance,
schedule) are typically used. Mathematical operations should not be performed on ordinal scale values to prevent
erroneous results (Conrow 2003, p. 187-364).
Once the risk level for each risk is determined, the risks need to be prioritized. Prioritization is typically performed
by risk level (e.g., low, medium, high), risk score (the pair of max (probability), max (consequence) values), and
other considerations such as time-frame, frequency of occurrence, and interrelationship with other risks (Conrow
2003, pp. 187-364). An additional prioritization technique is to convert results into an estimated cost, performance,
and schedule value (e.g., probability budget consequence). However, the result is only a point estimate and not a
distribution of risk.
Widely used quantitative methods include decision trees and the associated expected monetary value analysis
(Clemen and Reilly 2001), modeling and simulation (Law 2007; Mun 2010; Vose 2000), payoff matrices (Kerzner
2009, p. 747-751), probabilistic risk assessments (Kumamoto and Henley 1996; NASA 2002), and other techniques.
Risk prioritization can directly result from the quantitative methods employed. For quantitative approaches, care is
needed in developing the model structure, since the results will only be as good as the accuracy of the structure,
coupled with the characteristics of probability estimates or distributions used to model the risks (Law 2007; Evans,
Hastings, and Peacock 2011).
If multiple risk facets exist for a given item (e.g., cost risk, schedule risk, and technical risk) the different results
should be integrated into a cohesive three-dimensional picture of risk. Sensitivity analyses can be applied to both
qualitative and quantitative approaches in an attempt to understand how potential variability will affect results.
Particular emphasis should be paid to compound risks (e.g., highly coupled technical risks with inadequate fixed
budgets and schedules).
Risk Management 386
Risk Handling
Risk handling is the process that identifies and selects options and implements the desired option to reduce a risk to
an acceptable level, given program constraints (budget, other resources) and objectives (DAU 2003a, 20-23, 70-78).
For a given system-of-interest (SoI), risk handling is primarily performed at two levels. At the system level, the
overall ensemble of system risks is initially determined and prioritized and second-level draft risk element plans
(REP's) are prepared for handling the risks. For more complex systems, it is important that the REP's at the higher
SoI level are kept consistent with the system RMPs at the lower SoI level, and that the top-level RMP preserves
continuing risk traceability across the SoI.
The risk handling strategy selected is the combination of the most desirable risk handling option coupled with a
suitable implementation approach for that option (Conrow 2003). Risk handling options include assumption,
avoidance, control (mitigation), and transfer. All four options should be evaluated and the best one chosen for each
risk. An appropriate implementation approach is then chosen for that option. Hybrid strategies can be developed that
include more than one risk handling option, but with a single implementation approach. Additional risk handling
strategies can also be developed for a given risk and either implemented in parallel with the primary strategy or be
made a contingent strategy that is implemented if a particular trigger event occurs during the execution of the
primary strategy. Often, this choice is difficult because of uncertainties in the risk probabilities and impacts. In such
cases, buying information to reduce risk uncertainty via prototypes, benchmarking, surveying, modeling, etc. will
clarify risk handling decisions (Boehm 1981).
Risk Handling Plans

A risk handling plan (RHP - a REP at the system level), should be developed and implemented for all high and
medium risks and selected low risks as warranted.
As identified by Conrow (2003, 365-387), each RHP should include:
• a risk owner and management contacts
• selected option
• implementation approach
• estimated probability and consequence of occurrence levels at the start and conclusion of each activity
• specific measurable exit criteria for each activity
• appropriate metrics
• resources needed to implement the RHP
Metrics included in each RHP should provide an objective means of determining whether the risk handling strategy
is on track and whether it needs to be updated. On larger projects these can include earned value, variation in
schedule and technical performance measures (TPMs), and changes in risk level vs. time.
The activities present in each RHP should be integrated into the project’s integrated master schedule or equivalent;
otherwise there will be ineffective risk monitoring and control.
Risk Monitoring
Risk monitoring is used to evaluate the effectiveness of risk handling activities against established metrics and
provide feedback to the other risk management process steps. Risk monitoring results may also provide a basis to
update RHPs, develop additional risk handling options and approaches, and re-analyze risks. In some cases,
monitoring results may also be used to identify new risks, revise an existing risk with a new facet, or revise some
aspects of risk planning (DAU 2003a, p. 20). Some risk monitoring approaches that can be applied include earned
value, program metrics, TPMs, schedule analysis, and variations in risk level. Risk monitoring approaches should be
updated and evaluated at the same time and WBS level; otherwise, the results may be inconsistent.
Risk Management 387
Opportunity and Opportunity Management

In principle, opportunity management is the duality to risk management, with two components: (1) probability of
achieving an improved outcome and (2) impact of achieving the outcome. Thus, both should be addressed in risk
management planning and execution. In practice, however, a positive opportunity exposure will not match a negative
risk exposure in utility space, since the positive utility magnitude of improving an expected outcome is considerably
less than the negative utility magnitude of failing to meet an expected outcome (Canada 1971; Kahneman-Tversky
1979). Further, since many opportunity-management initiatives have failed to anticipate serious side effects, all
candidate opportunities should be thoroughly evaluated for potential risks to prevent unintended consequences from
occurring.
In addition, while opportunities may provide potential benefits for the system or project, each opportunity pursued
may have associated risks that detract from the expected benefit. This may reduce the ability to achieve the
anticipated effects of the opportunity, in addition to any limitations associated with not pursing an opportunity.

The measurement process provides indicators for risk analysis. Project planning involves the identification of risk
and planning for stakeholder involvement. Project assessment and control monitors project risks. Decision
management evaluates alternatives for selection and handling of identified and analyzed risks.
Key pitfalls and good practices related to systems engineering risk management are described in the next two
sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in performing risk management are below in Table 1.
Table 1. Risk Management Pitfalls. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
Process • Over-reliance on the process side of risk management without sufficient attention to human and organizational behavioral
Over-Reliance considerations.
Lack of • Failure to implement risk management as a continuous process. Risk management will be ineffective if it’s done just to
Continuity satisfy project reviews or other discrete criteria. (Charette, Dwinnell, and McGarry 2004, 18-24 and Scheinin 2008).
Tool and • Over-reliance on tools and techniques, with insufficient thought and resources expended on how the process will be
Technique implemented and run on a day-to-day basis.
Over-Reliance
Lack of Vigilance • A comprehensive risk identification will generally not capture all risks; some risks will always escape detection, which
reinforces the need for risk identification to be performed continuously.
Automatic • Automatically select the risk handling mitigation option, rather than evaluating all four options in an unbiased fashion and
Mitigation choosing the “best” option.
Selection
Sea of Green • Tracking progress of the risk handling plan, while the plan itself may not adequately include steps to reduce the risk to an
acceptable level. Progress indicators may appear “green” (acceptable) associated with the risk handling plan: budgeting,
staffing, organizing, data gathering, model preparation, etc. However, the risk itself may be largely unaffected if the
handling strategy and the resulting plan are poorly developed, do not address potential root cause(s), and do not incorporate
actions that will effectively resolve the risk.
Band-Aid Risk • Handling risks (e.g., interoperability problems with changes in external systems) by patching each instance, rather than
Handling addressing the root cause(s) and reducing the likelihood of future instances.
Risk Management 388
Good Practices
Some good practices gathered from the references are below in Table 2.
Table 2. Risk Management Good Practices. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
Top Down and • Risk management should be both “top down” and “bottom up” in order to be effective. The project manager or deputy need
Bottom Up to own the process at the top level, but risk management principles should be considered and used by all project personnel.
Early Planning • Include the planning process step in the risk management process. Failure to adequately perform risk planning early in the
project phase contributes to ineffective risk management.
Risk Analysis • Understand the limitations of risk analysis tools and techniques. Risk analysis results should be challenged because
Limitations considerable input uncertainty and/or potential errors may exist.
Robust Risk • The risk handling strategy should attempt to reduce both the probability and consequence of occurrence terms. It is also
Handling imperative that the resources needed to properly implement the chosen strategy be available in a timely manner, else the risk
Strategy handling strategy, and the entire risk management process, will be viewed as a “paper tiger.”
Structured Risk • Risk monitoring should be a structured approach to compare actual vs. anticipated cost, performance, schedule, and risk
Monitoring outcomes associated with implementing the RHP. When ad-hoc or unstructured approaches are used, or when risk level vs.
time is the only metric tracked, the resulting risk monitoring usefulness can be greatly reduced.
Update Risk • The risk management database (registry) should be updated throughout the course of the program, striking a balance
Database between excessive resources required and insufficient updates performed. Database updates should occur at both a tailored,
regular interval and following major program changes.
References
Works Cited
Boehm, B. 1981. Software Engineering Economics. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Boehm, B. 1989. Software Risk Management. Los Alamitos, CA; Tokyo, Japan: IEEE Computer Society Press:
115-125.
Canada, J.R. 1971. Intermediate Economic Analysis for Management and Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice Hall.
Carr, M., S. Konda, I. Monarch, F. Ulrich, and C. Walker. 1993. Taxonomy-based risk identification. Pittsburgh, PA,
USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-93-TR-6.
Charette, R., L. Dwinnell, and J. McGarry. 2004. "Understanding the roots of process performance failure."
CROSSTALK: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering (August 2004): 18-24.
Clemen, R., and T. Reilly. 2001. Making hard decisions. Boston, MA, USA: Duxbury.
Conrow, E. 2003. Effective Risk Management: Some Keys to Success, 2nd ed. Reston, VA, USA: American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
Conrow, E. 2008. "Risk analysis for space systems." Paper presented at Space Systems Engineering and Risk
Management Symposium, 27-29 February, 2008, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Conrow, E. and P. Shishido. 1997. "Implementing risk management on software intensive projects." IEEE Software.
14(3) (May/June 1997): 83-9.
DAU. 2003a. Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition: Fifth Edition, version 2. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense
Acquisition University (DAU) Press.
Risk Management 389
DAU. 2003b. U.S. Department of Defense extension to: A guide to the project management body of knowledge
(PMBOK(R) guide), first edition. Version 1. 1st ed. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU)
Press.
DoD. 2015. Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs. Washington, DC,
USA: Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering/Department of Defense.
Evans, M., N. Hastings, and B. Peacock. 2000. Statistical Distributions, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA:
Wiley-Interscience.
Forbes, C., M. Evans, N. Hastings, and B. Peacock. 2011. “Statistical Distributions,” 4th ed. New York, NY, USA.
Gallagher, B., P. Case, R. Creel, S. Kushner, and R. Williams. 2005. A taxonomy of operational risk. Pittsburgh, PA,
USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-2005-TN-036.
Gluch, P. 1994. A Construct for Describing Software Development Risks. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software
Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-94-TR-14.
Kerzner, H. 2009. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. 10th ed.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. "Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk." Econometrica. 47(2)
(Mar., 1979): 263-292.
Kumamoto, H. and E. Henley. 1996. Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Management for Engineers and Scientists,
2nd ed. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Press.
Mun, J. 2010. Modeling Risk, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
NASA. 2002. Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners, version 1.1.
Washington, DC, USA: Office of Safety and Mission Assurance/National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA).
Scheinin, W. 2008. "Start Early and Often: The Need for Persistent Risk Management in the Early Acquisition
Phases." Paper presented at Space Systems Engineering and Risk Management Symposium, 27-29 February 2008,
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
SEI. 2010. Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for Development, version 1.3. Pittsburgh, PA, USA:
Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
Vose, D. 2000. Quantitative Risk Analysis, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Willis, H.H., A.R. Morral, T.K. Kelly, and J.J. Medby. 2005. Estimating Terrorism Risk. Santa Monica, CA, USA:
The RAND Corporation, MG-388.
Risk Management 390
Primary References
Boehm, B. 1981. Software Engineering Economics. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA:Prentice Hall.
Boehm, B. 1989. Software Risk Management. Los Alamitos, CA; Tokyo, Japan: IEEE Computer Society Press, p.
115-125.
Conrow, E.H. 2003. Effective Risk Management: Some Keys to Success, 2nd ed. Reston, VA, USA: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
DoD. 2015. Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs. Washington, DC,
USA: Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering/Department of Defense.
Canada, J.R. 1971. Intermediate Economic Analysis for Management and Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice Hall.
Carr, M., S. Konda, I. Monarch, F. Ulrich, and C. Walker. 1993. Taxonomy-based risk identification. Pittsburgh, PA,
USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-93-TR-6.
Charette, R. 1990. Application Strategies for Risk Management. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Charette, R. 1989. Software Engineering Risk Analysis and Management. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill
(MultiScience Press).
Charette, R., L. Dwinnell, and J. McGarry. 2004. "Understanding the roots of process performance failure."
CROSSTALK: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering (August 2004): 18-24.
Clemen, R., and T. Reilly. 2001. Making hard decisions. Boston, MA, USA: Duxbury.
Conrow, E. 2010. "Space program schedule change probability distributions." Paper presented at American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Space 2010, 1 September 2010, Anaheim, CA, USA.
Conrow, E. 2009. "Tailoring risk management to increase effectiveness on your project." Presentation to the Project
Management Institute, Los Angeles Chapter, 16 April, 2009, Los Angeles, CA.
Conrow, E. 2008. "Risk analysis for space systems." Paper presented at Space Systems Engineering and Risk
Management Symposium, 27-29 February, 2008, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Conrow, E. and P. Shishido. 1997. "Implementing risk management on software intensive projects." IEEE Software.
14(3) (May/June 1997): 83-9.
DAU. 2003a. Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition: Fifth Edition. Version 2. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA:
Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Press.
DAU. 2003b. U.S. Department of Defense extension to: A guide to the project management body of knowledge
(PMBOK(R) guide), 1st ed. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Press.
Dorofee, A., J. Walker, C. Alberts, R. Higuera, R. Murphy, and R. Williams (eds). 1996. Continuous Risk
Management Guidebook. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University
(CMU).
Gallagher, B., P. Case, R. Creel, S. Kushner, and R. Williams. 2005. A taxonomy of operational risk. Pittsburgh, PA,
USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-2005-TN-036.
Gluch, P. 1994. A Construct for Describing Software Development Risks. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software
Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-94-TR-14.
Haimes, Y.Y. 2009. Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Risk Management 391
Hall, E. 1998. Managing Risk: Methods for Software Systems Development. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley
Professional.
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, version 4.
San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2014-001-04.
ISO. 2009. Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), ISO 31000:2009.
ISO/IEC. 2009. Risk Management—Risk Assessment Techniques. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC 31010:2009.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2006. Systems and Software Engineering - Risk Management. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 16085.
ISO. 2003. Space Systems - Risk Management. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), ISO 17666:2003.
Jones, C. 1994. Assessment and Control of Software Risks. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. 1979. "Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk." Econometrica. 47(2)
(Mar., 1979): 263-292.
Kerzner, H. 2009. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, 10th ed.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kumamoto, H., and E. Henley. 1996. Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Management for Engineers and Scientists,
2nd ed. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Press.
MITRE. 2012. Systems Engineering Guide to Risk Management. Available online: http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/
systems_engineering/ guide/ acquisition_systems_engineering/ risk_management/ . Accessed on July 7, 2012. Page
last updated on May 8, 2012.
Mun, J. 2010. Modeling Risk, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
NASA. 2002. Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners, version 1.1.
Washington, DC, USA: Office of Safety and Mission Assurance/National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA).
Scheinin, W. 2008. "Start Early and Often: The Need for Persistent Risk Management in the Early Acquisition
Phases." Paper presented at Space Systems Engineering and Risk Management Symposium, 27-29 February 2008,
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
USAF. 2005. SMC systems engineering primer & handbook: Concepts, processes, and techniques, 3rd ed. Los
Angeles, CA, USA: Space & Missile Systems Center/U.S. Air Force (USAF).
USAF. 2014. ‘’SMC Risk Management Process Guide. Version 2. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Space & Missile Systems
Center/U.S. Air Force (USAF).
Vose, D. 2000. Quantitative Risk Analysis. 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Willis, H.H., A.R. Morral, T.K. Kelly, and J.J. Medby. 2005. Estimating Terrorism Risk. Santa Monica, CA, USA:
The RAND Corporation, MG-388.
Risk Management 392

Configuration Management
Lead Authors: Ray Madachy, John Snoderly, Garry Roedler, Contributing Author: Rick Adcock
The purpose of configuration management (CM) is to establish and maintain the integrity of all of the identified
outputs of a project or process and make them available to concerned parties (ISO/IEC/IEEE 2015). Unmanaged
changes to system artifacts (such as those associated with plans, requirements, design, software, hardware, testing,
and documentation) can lead to problems that persist throughout the system life cycle. Hence, one primary objective
of CM is to manage and control the change to such artifacts.
Configuration Management Process Overview

CM is the discipline of identifying and formalizing the functional and physical characteristics of a configuration item
at discrete points in the product evolution for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the product system and
controlling changes to the baseline. The baseline for a project contains all of the technical requirements and related
cost and schedule requirements that are sufficiently mature to be accepted and placed under change control by the
project manager. The project baseline consists of two parts: the technical baseline and the business baseline. The
systems engineer is responsible for managing the technical baseline and ensuring that it is consistent with the costs
and schedules in the business baseline. Typically, the project control office manages the business baseline.
The ANSI/GEIA EIA-649-A standard presents CM from the viewpoint that configuration management practices are
employed because they make good business sense rather than because requirements are imposed by an external
customer (ANSI/GEIA 2005). The standard discusses CM principles and practices from an enterprise view; it does
not prescribe which CM activities individual organizations or teams within the enterprise should perform. Each
enterprise assigns responsibilities in accordance with its own management policy. See also the Implementation
Guide for Configuration Management, which supports and provides further information on this standard
(ANSI/GEIA October 2005).
Effective CM depends on the establishment, maintenance, and implementation of an effective process. The CM
process should include, but is not limited to, the following activities:
• identification and involvement of relevant stakeholders
• setting of CM goals and expected outcomes
• identification and description of CM tasks
• assignment of responsibility and authority for performing the CM process tasks
• establishment of procedures for monitoring and control of the CM process
• measurement and assessment of the CM process effectiveness
As a minimum the CM process should incorporate and detail the following tasks (SEI 2010):
• identifying the configuration of selected work products that compose the baselines at given points in time
• controlling changes to configuration items
• building or providing specifications to build work products from the configuration management system
• maintaining the integrity of baselines
• providing accurate status and current configuration data to developers, end users, and customers
Figure 1 below shows the primary functions of systems CM.
Figure 1. Configuration Management Functions. (SEBoK Original)
Planning
The CM plan must be developed in consideration of the organizational context and culture; it must adhere to or
incorporate applicable policies, procedures, and standards and it must accommodate acquisition and subcontractor
situations. A CM plan details and schedules the tasks to be performed as part of the CM process including:
configuration identification, change control, configuration status accounting, configuration auditing, and release
management and delivery.
Configuration Identification
This activity is focused on identifying the configuration items which will be managed and controlled under a CM
process. The identification activity involves establishing a procedure for labeling items and their versions. The
labeling provides a context for each item within the system configuration and shows the relationship between system
items.
Establishing Baseline
Configuration items are typically assembled into a baseline which specifies how a system will be viewed for the
purposes of management, control, and evaluation. This baseline is fixed at a specific point in time in the system life
cycle and represents the current approved configuration. It generally can only be changed through formal change
procedures.
Change Control
A disciplined change control process is critical for systems engineering. A generalized change control process in
response to an engineering change proposal (ECP) is shown in Figure 2 below, which is adapted from Systems
Engineering and Analysis (Blanchard and Fabrycky 1999).
Figure 2. Configuration Change Control Process. (SEBoK Original)
Configuration Auditing
Audits are independent evaluations of the current stat us of configuration items and determine conformance of the
configuration activities to the CM process. Adherence to applicable CM plans, regulations, and standards, is
typically assessed during audits.
Constraints and Guidance

Constraints affecting and guiding the CM process come from a number of sources. Policies, procedures, and
standards set forth at corporate or other organizational levels might influence or constrain the design and
implementation of the CM process. Also, the contract with an acquirer or supplier may contain provisions affecting
the CM process. The system life cycle process adopted and the tools, methods, and other processes used in system
development can affect the CM process (Bourque and Fairley 2014). There are a variety of sources for guidance on
the development of a CM process. These include the ISO standards on system life cycle processes (ISO/IEC/IEEE
15288 2015) and configuration management guidelines (ISO 10007 2003), as well as the Guide to The Software
Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) (Bourque and Fairley 2014), and the CMMI for Development (SEI
2010).
Organizational Issues
Successful CM planning, management, and implementation requires an understanding of the organizational context
for the design and implementation of the CM process and why constraints are placed upon it. To plan a CM process
for a project, it is necessary to understand the organizational context and the relationships among the organizational
elements. CM interacts with other organizational elements, which may be structured in a number of ways. Although
the responsibility for performing certain CM tasks might be assigned to other parts of the organization, the overall
responsibility for CM often rests with a distinct organizational element or designated individual (Bourque and
Fairley 2014).
Measurement
In order to carry out certain CM functions, such as status accounting and auditing, as well as to monitor and assess
the effectiveness of CM processes, it is necessary to measure and collect data related to CM activities and system
artifacts. CM libraries and automated report tools provide convenient access and facilitation of data collection.
Examples of metrics include the size of documentation artifacts, number of change requests, mean time to change to
a configuration item, and rework costs.
Tools
CM employs a variety of tools to support the process, for example:
• library management
• tracking and change management
• version management
• release management
The INCOSE Tools Database Working Group (INCOSE TDWG 2010) maintains an extensive list of tools including
configuration management.

Configuration management is involved in the management and control of artifacts produced and modified
throughout the system life cycle in all areas of system definition, system realization, system deployment and use, and
product and service life management. This includes CM application to the artifacts of all the other management
processes (plans, analyses, reports, statuses, etc.).
Key pitfalls and good practices related to systems engineering CM are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing CM are in Table 1.
Table 1. Configuration Management Pitfalls. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
Shallow Visibility • Not involving all affected disciplines in the change control process.
Poor Tailoring • Inadequate CM tailoring to adapt to the project scale, number of subsystems, etc.
Limited CM • Not considering and integrating the CM processes of all contributing organizations including COTS vendors and
Perspective subcontractors.
Good Practices
Some good practices gathered from the references are provided in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Configuration Management Good Practices. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
Cross-Functional CM • Implement cross-functional communication and CM processes for software, hardware, firmware, data, or other types
of items as appropriate.
Full Lifecycle • Plan for integrated CM through the life cycle. Do not assume that it will just happen as part of the program.
Perspective
CM Planning • Processes are documented in a single, comprehensive CM plan early in the project. The plan should be a (systems)
CM plan.
• Include tools selected and used.
Requirements • Initiate requirements traceability at the start of the CM activity.

Traceability
CCB Hierarchy • Use a hierarchy of configuration control boards commensurate with the program elements.
Consistent Identification • Software CI and hardware CI use consistent identification schemes.
CM Automation • Configuration status accounting should be as automated as possible.
Additional good practices can be found in ISO/IEC/IEEE (2009, Clause 6.4) and INCOSE (2010, sec. 5.4.1.5).
References
Works Cited
ANSI/GEIA. 2005. Implementation Guide for Configuration Management. Arlington, VA, USA: American National
Standards Institute/Government Electronics & Information Technology Association, GEIA-HB-649. October 2005.
Blanchard, B.S. and W J. Fabrycky. 2005. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice-hall international
series in industrial and systems engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Bourque, P. and R.E. Fairley (eds.). 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK). Los
ISO. 2003. Quality Management Systems – Guidelines for Configuration Management. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 10007:2003.
15288:2015
Primary References
ANSI/EEIA. 2016. Configuration Management Standard Implementation Guide [1]. Arlington, VA, USA: American
National Standards Institute/Government Electronics & Information Technology Association, GEIAHB649A.
February 2016.
ANSI/GEIA. 2005. Implementation Guide for Configuration Management. Arlington, VA, USA: American National
Standards Institute/Government Electronics & Information Technology Association, GEIA-HB-649. October 2005.
GEIA. 2004. GEIA Consensus Standard for Data Management. Arlington, VA, USA: Government Electronics &
Information Technology Association, GEIA-859.
ISO. 2003. Quality Management Systems – Guidelines for Configuration Management. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 10007:2003.
15288:2015
INCOSE Tools database working group (TDWG). in International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
[database online]. San Diego, CA, USA, 2010. Accessed April 13, 2015. Available at: http:/ / www. incose. org/
docs/default-source/wgcharters/tools-database.pdf.
INCOSE. 2008. "INCOSE measurement tools survey." in International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
[database online]. San Diego, CA, USA, 2008.

References
[1] https:/ / www. sae. org/ standards/ content/ geiahb649a/
Information Management
Lead Authors: Andy Pickard, Garry Roedler, Contributing Authors: Ray Madachy
The information management (IM) process is a set of activities associated with the collection and management of
information from one or more sources and the distribution of that information to one or more audiences. Information,
in its most restricted technical sense, is an ordered sequence of symbols that record or transmit a message. The key
idea is that information is a collection of facts that is organized in such a way that they have additional value beyond
the value of the facts themselves. The systems engineer is both the generator and recipient of information products;
thus, the systems engineer has a vital stake in the success of the development and use of the IM process and IM
systems.
Overview
Information can exist in many forms in an organization; some information is related to a specific system
development program and some is held at an enterprise level and made available to programs as required. It may be
held in electronic format or in physical form (for instance, paper drawings or documents, microfiche or other
photographic records).
The IM process includes a set of interrelated activities associated with information systems, systems of systems
(SoS), architectures, services, nested hardware/platforms, and people. Fundamentally, this process is a set of
activities that are concerned with improvements in a variety of human problem-solving endeavors. This includes the
design, development, and use of technologically based systems and processes that enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of information and associated knowledge in a variety of strategic/business, tactical, and operational
situations.
Management refers to the organization of and control over process activities associated with the structure,
processing, and delivery of information. For example, the organizational structure must have management processes
capable of managing this information throughout the information life cycle regardless of source or format (e.g., data,
paper documents, electronic documents, audio, video, etc.) for delivery through multiple channels that may include
cell phones and web interfaces.
A computer-based IM system is an organized combination of people, hardware, software, communication networks,
and the data resources that collect, transform, and disseminate information in an organization. From the perspective
of the systems engineer, the IM process is a cycle of inter-related information activities to be planned for, designed,
and coordinated. Numerous life cycle development process models exist. Figure 1 below is a high-level process
model that emphasizes the role of systems engineering (SE) in IM.
Figure 1. Life Cycle Information Management Process Development Model.

(SEBoK Original)
The SE function in the development of an IM system is concerned with several rate-limiting architecture and design
variables, (e.g., information sharing, quality, security, efficiency, compliance, etc.) that should be considered
up-front in the life cycle development process. Each of these variables can be subdivided into architecture and design
considerations for the information system-of-interest (SoI). For example, quality can be viewed in terms of data
validity, consistency, and comprehensiveness. Figure 2 provides an overview of information management
considerations.
Figure 2. Information Management Architecture and Design Considerations. (SEBoK Original)
The effective and efficient employment of IM systems should solve business needs. These needs can center on
several business objectives, such as efficiency, effectiveness, competitiveness, or profitability. From a business
enterprise perspective, the systems engineer may be involved in several activities that support the development of IM
systems, such as strategic planning, analyses of technology/business trends, development of applications,
understanding operational disciplines, resource control techniques, and assessment of organization structures.
The IM process ensures that necessary information is created, stored, retained, protected, managed, and made easily
available to those with a need and who are permitted access. It also ensures that information is disposed of when it is
no longer relevant.
The Information Management Process

To quote from ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015):
The purpose of the Information Management Process is to generate, obtain, confirm, transform, retain,
retrieve, disseminate and dispose of information, to designated stakeholders…
Information management plans, executes, and controls the provision of information to designated
stakeholders that is unambiguous, complete, verifiable, consistent, modifiable, traceable, and
presentable.
The first step in the IM process is to plan IM. The output of this step is the IM strategy or plan. The second step is to
perform IM. The outputs of this step are the creation, population and maintenance of one or more information
repositories, together with the creation and dissemination of information management reports.
Plan Information Management

Issues that should be considered when creating the IM strategy/plan include:
• Scope
•What information has to be managed?
•How long will the information need to be retained?
•Is a system data dictionary is required to be able to "tag" information for ease of search and retrieval?
•Will the media that will be used for the management of the information be physical, electronic, or both?
•Have a work in progress (WIP) and formally released information already been considered when establishing
data repositories?
• Constraints
• What level of configuration control must be applied to the information?
• Are there any regulatory requirements relating to the management of information for this project, including
export control requirements?
• Are there any customer requirements or agreements relating to the management of project information?
• Are there any industry standards relating to the management of project information?
• Are there any organization/enterprise directives, procedures, or standards relating to the management of project
information?
• Are there any project directives, procedures, or standards relating to the management of project information?
• Control/Security
• Who is allowed access to the information? This could include people working on the project, other members of
the organization/enterprise, customers, partners, suppliers and regulatory authorities.
• Are there requirements to protect the information from unauthorized access? This could include intellectual
property (IP) rights that have to be respected - for instance, if information from suppliers is to be stored and
there is the possibility of a supplier gaining access to information belonging to a competitor who is also a
supplier for the project.
• What data repository or repositories are to be used?
• Has the volume of information to be stored been considered when selecting repositories?
• Has speed of access and search been considered when selecting repositories?
• If electronic information is to be stored, what file formats are allowed?
• Have requirements been defined to ensure that the information being stored is valid?
• Have requirements been defined to ensure that information is disposed of correctly when it is no longer
required to be stored, or when it is no longer valid? For instance, has a review period been defined for each
piece of information?
• Life Cycle
• If electronic information is to be stored for a long time, how will it be "future-proofed?" For instance, are
neutral file formats available, or will copies of the software that created or used the information be retained?
• Have disaster recovery requirements been considered – e.g., if a server holding electronic information is
destroyed, are there back-up copies of the information? Are the back-up copies regularly accessed to show that
information recovery is flawless?
• Is there a formal requirement to archive designated information for compliance with legal (including
regulatory), audit, and information retention requirements? If so, has an archive and archiving method been
defined?
• Some information may not be required to be stored (e.g., the results files for analyses when the information
occupies a large volume and can be regenerated by the analysis tool and the input file). However, if the cost to
re-generate the information is high, consider doing a cost/benefit analysis for storage versus regeneration.
Perform Information Management

Issues that should be considered when performing information management include:
• Is the information valid (is it traceable to the information management strategy/plan and the list of information to
be managed)?
• Has the workflow for review and approval of information been defined to transfer information from "work in
progress" to "released?"
• Are the correct configuration management requirements being applied to the information? Has the information
been baselined?
• Have the correct "tags" been applied to the information to allow for easy search and retrieval?
• Have the correct access rules been applied to the information? Can users access the information that they are
permitted to access, and only this information?
• If required, has the information been translated into a neutral file format prior to storage?
• Has a review date been set for assessing the continued validity of the information?
• Has the workflow for review and removal of unwanted, invalid, or unverifiable information (as defined in
organization/enterprise policy, project policy, security or intellectual property requirements) been defined?
• Has the information been backed up and has the backup recovery system been tested?
• Has designated information been archived in compliance with legal (including regulatory), audit, and information
retention requirements?
• Does the IM system satisfy defined performance requirements - for instance, speed of access, availability, and
searchability?

The systems engineering IM process is closely coupled with the system definition, planning, and CM processes. The
requirements for IM are elicited from stakeholders as part of the system definition process. What/when information
is to be stored in the systems engineering lifecycle is defined in the planning process and configuration control
requirements are defined in the CM process.
Key pitfalls and good practices related to IM are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing IM are provided in Table 1:
Table 1. Information Management Pitfalls. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Name Pitfall Description
No Data Dictionary • Not defining a data dictionary for the project may result in inconsistencies in naming conventions for information and
proliferation of meta-data "tags", which reduces the accuracy and completeness of searches for information and adding
search time performance.
No Metadata • Not "tagging" information with metadata or tagging inconsistently may result in searches being based on metadata tags,
which are ineffective and can overlook key information.
No Back-Up • Not checking that information can be retrieved effectively from a back-up repository when access to the back-up is
Verification needed may result in one discovering that the back-up information is corrupted or not accessible.
Access Obsolescence • This refers to saving information in an electronic format which eventually ceases to be accessible and not retaining a
working copy of the obsolete software to be able to access the information.
Inadequate • This refers to the error of archiving information on an electronic medium that does not have the required durability to be
Long-Term Retention readable through the required retention life of the information and not regularly accessing and re-archiving the
information.
Inadequate Validity • Not checking the continued validity of information results in outdated or incorrect information being retained and used.
Maintenance
Good Practices
Some good practices gathered from the references are provided in Table 2:
Table 2. Information Management Good Practices. (SEBoK Original)

Good Practice Name Good Practice Description
Guidance • The DAMA Guide to the Data Management Body of Knowledge provides an excellent, detailed overview of IM at both
the project and enterprise level.
Information as an • Recognize that information is a strategic asset for the organization and needs to be managed and protected.
Asset
Information Storage • Plan for the organization's information repository storage capacity to need to double every 12 to 18 months.
Capacity
Effective Information • Information that sits in a repository adds no value. It only adds value when it is used, so the right people need to be able
Access to access the right information easily and quickly.
Data Modeling • Invest time and effort in designing data models that are consistent with the underlying structure and information needs
of the organization.
Quality Management • The cost impact of using poor quality information can be enormous. Be rigorous about managing the quality of
information.
Information • The impact of managing information poorly can also be enormous (e.g., violating intellectual property or export control
Repository Design rules).
• Make sure that these requirements are captured and implemented in the information repository, and that all users of the
repository are aware of the rules that they need to follow and the penalties for infringement.
References
Works Cited
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2008. Systems and Software Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organisation for Standardisation/International Electrotechnical Commissions. ISO/IEC/IEEE
15288:2008.
Mosley, M. (ed.). 2009. The DAMA Guide to the Data Management Body of Knowledge (DAMA-DMBOK Guide).
Bradley Beach, NJ, USA: Technics Publications.
Primary References
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
15288:2015.
Mosley, M. (ed.). 2009. The DAMA Guide to the Data Management Body of Knowledge (DAMA-DMBOK Guide).
Bradley Beach, NJ, USA: Technics Publications.
Redman, T. 2008. Data Driven: Profiting from Your Most Important Business Asset. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard
Business Press.
None.

Quality Management
Lead Authors: Quong Wang, Massood Towhidnejad, David Olwell, Contributing Authors: Dick Fairley, Garry
Roedler
Whether a systems engineer delivers a product, a service, or an enterprise, the deliverable should meet the needs of
the customer and be fit for use. Such a deliverable is said to be of high quality. The process to assure high quality is
called quality management.
Overview
Over the past 80 years, a quality movement has emerged to enable organizations to produce high quality deliverables.
This movement has gone through four stages:
1. Acceptance Sampling was developed to apply statistical tests to assist in the decision of whether or not to accept
a lot of material based on a random sample of its content.
2. Statistical Process Control (SPC) was developed to determine if production processes were stable. Instead of
necessarily measuring products, processes are measured instead. Processes that departed from a state of statistical
control were far more likely to develop low quality deliverables.
3. Design for Quality focused on designing processes that were robust against causes of variation, reducing the
likelihood that a process would go out of control, and accordingly reducing the monitoring requirements.
4. Six sigma methods are applied the tools and power of statistical thinking to improve other aspects of the
organization.
Definitions
The American Society for Quality [1] provides the following definitions:
• Acceptance Sampling involves the inspection of a sample to decide whether to accept the entire lot. There are two
types of sampling:
• In attributes sampling, the presence or absence of a characteristic is noted in each of the units inspected.
• In variables sampling, the numerical magnitude of a characteristic is measured and recorded for each inspected
unit. This involves reference to a continuous scale of some kind.
• SPC is the application of statistical techniques to control a process. It is often used interchangeably with the term
“statistical quality control.”
• Quality is a subjective term for which each person or sector has its own definition. In technical usage, quality can
have two meanings:
• The characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.
• A product or service free of deficiencies. According to Joseph Juran, quality means “fitness for use.”
According to Philip Crosby, it means "conformance to requirements."
• Six Sigma is a method that provides organizations with tools to improve the capability of their business processes.
This increase in performance and decrease in process variation leads to defect reduction and improvement in
profits, employee morale, and quality of products or services. Six Sigma quality is a term generally used to
indicate a process is well controlled (±6 s from the centerline in a control chart).
Quality Attributes
Quality attributes, also known as quality factors, quality characteristics, or non-functional requirements, are a set of
system functional and non-functional requirements that are used to evaluate the system performance. There are a
large number of system quality attributes identified in the literature (e.g. MSDN 2010, Barbacci et al. 1995).
Depending on the type of the system being considered, some of these attributes are more prominent than others.
Ideally, a system would be optimized for all the quality attributes that are important to the stakeholders, but this is an
impossible task. Therefore, it is important to conduct a trade-off analysis to identify the relationship between the
attributes and establish whether a change in one attribute would positively or negatively affect any other attributes.
An example of such trade-off is shown in Table 1 below. (See SEBoK discussion on specialty engineering for
additional information on quality attributes.)
Table 1. Attribute Trade Off. (SEBoK Original)

Flexibility Maintainability Reliability
Flexibility + -
Maintainability + +
Reliability - +
Finding the right set of quality attributes is the first step in quality control and management. In order to achieve high
quality, quality must be measured, monitored, managed, and improved on. Therefore, in order to increase the overall
system quality, it is necessary to:
• identify and prioritize the quality attributes
• identify the metrics that can be used for these attributes
• measure and monitor the attributes
• validate the measurements
• analyze the result of those measurements
• establish processes and procedures that result in improved system quality, based on the analysis.
Quality Attributes for Products

Quality attributes for a product focus on the conformance to the specifications for the product; frequently these are
manufacturing specifications. Examples include physical characteristics (length, weight, finish, capacity, etc.) being
inside a given tolerance range. The physical characteristics can be related to the function of the product or to
aesthetic qualities.
A single product may have a vector of quality attributes of high dimension as well as an associated region in which
the vector is expected to be. Often the quality is summarized by saying the item is "in compliance" (if the vector is in
the acceptable region) or "defective" (if the vector is outside the acceptable region).
Quality Attributes for Services

Quality of services plays a major role in customer satisfaction, which is the measurement of the overall system
quality. Services can be divided into two major categories: primary and secondary. The city public transportation
system, the U.S. postal service, or the medical services provided by a hospital are all examples of primary services.
Services that provide help to a customer are secondary services, which are typically referred to as a customer service.
Identifying the appropriate quality attributes is critical in the quality management of services. Some examples of
service quality attributes include: affordability, availability, dependability, efficiency, predictability, reliability,
responsiveness, safety, security, usability, etc. Again, depending on the type of the service, some of these attributes
are more prominent than the others.
For example, in the case of services that are provided by the hospital, one may potentially be more interested in the
availability, reliability, and responsiveness than the security (typically hospitals are assumed to be safe) and the
affordability (typically insurance covers the majority of the cost). Of course, if the patient does not have a good
insurance coverage, then the importance of affordability will increase (de Knoning, 2006).
Quality Attributes for Enterprises

An enterprise typically refers to a large, complex set of interconnected entities that includes people, technologies,
processes, financial, and physical elements. Clearly, a typical enterprise has a number of internal and external
stakeholders, and as a result there are a large number of quality attributes that will define its quality. Identifying the
right set of attributes is typically more challenging in such a complex system. An example of an enterprise is the air
traffic management system that is mainly responsible for the safe and efficient operation of the civil aviation within a
country or collection of countries. There are many stakeholders that are concerned about the overall quality of the
system, some example of these stakeholders and some of the primary quality attributes that they are concerned with
are identified in Table 2.
Table 2. Enterprise Stakeholders and their Quality Attributes. (SEBoK Original)

Stakeholders Primary Quality Attributes
Passengers Safety, affordability, and reliability
Airlines Adaptability, efficiency, and profitability
Air Traffic Controller Safety, reliability, and usability
Hardware & Software Developers Reliability, fault tolerance, and maintainability
Government/Regulatory Agency Safety, reliability, affordability, etc.
Measuring Quality Attributes

Quality cannot be achieved if it cannot be measured. The Measurement System Analysis (MSA) (Wheeler and
Lynday 1989) is a set of measuring instruments that provide an adequate capability for a team to conduct appropriate
measurements in order to monitor and control quality. The MSA is a collection of:
• Tools - measuring instruments, calibration, etc.
• Processes - testing and measuring methods, set of specifications, etc.
• Procedures - policies and procedures and methodologies that are defined by the company and/or regulatory
agency
• People - personnel (managers, testers, analysis, etc.) who are involved in the measurement activities
• Environment - both environmental setting and physical setting that best simulate the operational environment
and/or the best setting to get the most accurate measurements
Once the quality attributes are identified and prioritized, then the MSA supports the monitor and control of overall
system quality.
Additional details about measurement are presented in the measurement article.
Quality Management Strategies
Acceptance Sampling
In acceptance sampling many examples of a product are presented for delivery. The consumer samples from the lot
and each member of the sample is then categorized as either acceptable or unacceptable based on an attribute
(attribute sampling) or measured against one or more metrics (variable sampling). Based on the measurements, an
inference is made as to whether the lot meets the customer requirements.
There are four possible outcomes of the sampling of a lot, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Truth Table - Outcomes of Acceptance Sampling. (SEBoK Original)

Lot Meets Requirement Lot Fails Requirement
Sample Passes Test No error Consumer risk
Sample Fails Test Producer risk No error
A sample acceptance plan balances the risk of error between the producer and consumer. Detailed ANSI/ISO/ASQ
standards describe how this allocation is performed (ANSI/ISO/ASQ A3534-2-1993: Statistics—Vocabulary and
Symbols—Statistical Quality Control).
Statistical Process Control

SPC is a method that was invented by Walter A. Shewhart (1931) that adopts statistical thinking to monitor and
control the behaviors and performances of a process. It involves using statistical analysis techniques as tools in
appropriate ways, such as providing an estimate of the variation in the performance of a process, investigating the
causes of this variation, and offering the engineer the means to recognize when the process is not performing as it
should based on the data. (Mary et al. 2006, 441). In this context, performance is measured by how well the process
is performed.
The theory of quality management emphasizes managing processes by fact and maintaining systematic
improvement. All product developments are a series of interconnected processes that have variation in their results.
Understanding variation with SPC technology can help the process executors understand the facts of their processes
and find the improvement opportunities from a systematic view.
Control charts are common tools in SPC. The control chart is also called the Shewhart 3-sigma chart. It consists of 3
limit lines: the center line, which is the mean of statistical samples, and the upper and lower control limit lines,
which are calculated using the mean and standard deviation of statistical samples. The observed data points or their
statistical values are drawn in the chart with time or other sequence orders. Upper and lower control limits indicate
the thresholds at which the process output will be considered as unlikely. There are two sources of process variation.
One is common cause variation, which is due to inherent interaction among process components. Another is
assignable cause, which is due to events that are not part of the normal process. SPC stresses bringing a process into
a state of statistical control, where only common cause variation exists, and keeping it in control. A control chart is
used to distinguish between variation in a process resulting from common causes and assignable causes.
If the process is in control, and if standard assumptions are met, points will demonstrate a normal distribution around
the control limit. Any points outside either of the limits, or in systematic patterns, imply a new source of variation
would be introduced. A new variation means increased quality cost. Additional types of control charts exist,
including: cumulative sum charts that detect small, persistent step change model departures and moving average
charts, which use different possible weighting schemes to detect persistent changes (Hawkins and Olwell 1996).
Design for Quality

Variation in the inputs to a process usually results in variation in the outputs. Processes can be designed, however, to
be robust against variation in the inputs. Response surface experimental design and analysis is the statistical
technique that is used to assist in determining the sensitivity of the process to variations in the input. Such an
approach was pioneered by Taguchi.
Six Sigma
Six sigma methodology (Pyzdek and Keller, 2009) is a set of tools to improve the quality of business processes; in
particular, to improve performance and reduce variation. Six sigma methods were pioneered by Motorola and came
into wide acceptance after they were championed by General Electric.
Problems resulting in variation are addressed by six sigma projects, which follow a five-stage process:
1. Define the problem, the stakeholders, and the goals.
2. Measure key aspects and collect relevant data.
3. Analyze the data to determine cause-effect relationships.
4. Improve the current process or design a new process.
5. Control the future state or verify the design.
These steps are known as DMAIC for existing processes and DMADV for new processes. A variant of six sigma is
called lean six sigma wherein the emphasis is on improving or maintaining quality while driving out waste.
Standards
Primary standards for quality management are maintained by ISO, principally the IS0 9000 series [2]. The ISO
standards provide requirements for the quality management systems of a wide range of enterprises, without
specifying how the standards are to be met. The key requirement is that the system must be audited. ISO standards
have world-wide acceptance.
In the United States, the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award presents up to three awards in six categories:
manufacturing, service company, small business, education, health care, and nonprofit. The Baldridge Criteria [3]
have become de facto standards for assessing the quality performance of organizations.
References
Works Cited
Barbacci, M., M.H. Klein, T.A. Longstaff, and C.B. Weinstock. 1995. Quality Attributes. Pittsburgh, PA, USA:
Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie Melon University. CMU/SEI-95-TR-021.
Chrissis, M.B., M. Konrad, and S. Shrum. 2006. CMMI for Development: Guidelines for Process Integration and
Product Improvement, 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.
Evans, J. and W. Lindsay. 2010. Managing for Quality and Performance Excellence. Florence, KY, USA: Cengage
Southwestern.
Juran, J.M. 1992. Juran on Quality by Design: The New Steps for Planning Quality into Goods and Services. New
York, NY, USA: The Free Press.
Koning, H. de, J.P.S. Verver, J. van den Heuvel, S. Bisgaard, R.J.M.M. Does. 2006. "Lean Six Sigma in Healthcare."
Journal for Healthcare Quality. 28(2) pp 4-11. MSDN. 2010. "Chapter 16: Quality Attributes," in Microsoft
Application Architecture Guide, 2nd Edition. Microsoft Software Developer Network, Microsoft Corporation.
Accessed August 31, 2012. Available online at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff650706.
Moen, R.D., T.W. Nolan, and L.P. Provost. 1991. Quality Improvement through Planned Experimentation. New
Pyzdek, T. and P.A. Keller. 2009. The Six Sigma Handbook, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Shewhart, W.A. 1931. Economic Control of Manufactured Product. New York, NY, USA: Van Nostrand.
Wheeler, D.J. and R.W. Lyday. 1989. Evaluating the Measurement Process, 2nd ed. Knoxville, TN, USA: SPC
Press.
Primary References
Chrissis, M.B, M. Konrad, S. Shrum. 2011. CMMI for Development: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product
Improvement, 3rd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Evans, J. and W. Lindsay. 2010. Managing for Quality and Performance Excellence. Florence, KY, USA: Cengage
Southwestern.
Juran, J.M. 1992. Juran on Quality by Design: The New Steps for Planning Quality into Goods and Services. New
York, NY, USA: The Free Press.
Moen, R.D., T.W. Nolan, and L.P. Provost. 1991. Quality Improvement through Planned Experimentation. New
Pyzdek, T. and P.A. Keller. 2009. The Six Sigma Handbook, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Wheeler, D.J. and R.W. Lyday. 1989. Evaluating the Measurement Process, 2nd ed. Knoxville, TN, USA: SPC
Press.
Hawkins, D. and D.H. Olwell. 1996. Cumulative Sum Charts and Charting for Quality Improvement. New York,
NY, USA: Springer.

References
[1] http:/ / asq. org/ glossary/ index. html
[2] http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ iso_catalogue/ management_and_leadership_standards/ quality_management. htm
[3] http:/ / www. nist. gov/ baldrige/ publications/ criteria. cfm
Measurement 410
Measurement
Lead Authors: Garry Roedler, Ray Madachy
Measurement and the accompanying analysis are fundamental elements of systems engineering (SE) and technical
management. SE measurement provides information relating to the products developed, services provided, and
processes implemented to support effective management of the processes and to objectively evaluate product or
service quality. Measurement supports realistic planning, provides insight into actual performance, and facilitates
assessment of suitable actions (Roedler and Jones 2005, 1-65; Frenz et al. 2010).
Appropriate measures and indicators are essential inputs to tradeoff analyses to balance cost, schedule, and technical
objectives. Periodic analysis of the relationships between measurement results and review of the requirements and
attributes of the system provides insights that help to identify issues early, when they can be resolved with less
impact. Historical data, together with project or organizational context information, forms the basis for the predictive
models and methods that should be used.
Fundamental Concepts
The discussion of measurement in this article is based on some fundamental concepts. Roedler et al. (2005, 1-65)
states three key SE measurement concepts that are paraphrased here:
1. SE measurement is a consistent but flexible process tailored to the unique information needs and
characteristics of a particular project or organization and revised as information needs change.
2. Decision makers must understand what is being measured. Key decision-makers must be able to connect
what is being measured to what they need to know and what decisions they need to make as part of a closed-loop,
feedback control process (Frenz et al. 2010).
3. Measurement must be used to be effective.
Measurement Process Overview

The measurement process as presented here consists of four activities from Practical Software and Systems
Measurement (PSM) (2011) and described in (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15939; McGarry et al. 2002):
1. establish and sustain commitment
2. plan measurement
3. perform measurement
4. evaluate measurement
This approach has been the basis for establishing a common process across the software and systems engineering
communities. This measurement approach has been adopted by the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
measurement and analysis process area (SEI 2006, 10), as well as by international systems and software engineering
standards (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15939; ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, 1). The International Council on Systems Engineering
(INCOSE) Measurement Working Group has also adopted this measurement approach for several of their
measurement assets, such as the INCOSE SE Measurement Primer (Frenz et al. 2010) and Technical Measurement
Guide (Roedler and Jones 2005). This approach has provided a consistent treatment of measurement that allows the
engineering community to communicate more effectively about measurement. The process is illustrated in Figure 1
from Roedler and Jones (2005) and McGarry et al. (2002).
Measurement 411
Figure 1. Four Key Measurement Process Activities (PSM 2011). Reprinted with permission of Practical Software and Systems
[1]
Measurement (PSM ). All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Establish and Sustain Commitment

This activity focuses on establishing the resources, training, and tools to implement a measurement process and
ensure that there is a management commitment to use the information that is produced. Refer to PSM (August 18,
2011) and SPC (2011) for additional detail.
Plan Measurement
This activity focuses on defining measures that provide insight into project or organization information needs. This
includes identifying what the decision-makers need to know and when they need to know it, relaying these
information needs to those entities in a manner that can be measured, and identifying, prioritizing, selecting, and
specifying measures based on project and organization processes (Jones 2003, 15-19). This activity also identifies
the reporting format, forums, and target audience for the information provided by the measures.
Here are a few widely used approaches to identify the information needs and derive associated measures, where each
can be focused on identifying measures that are needed for SE management:
• The PSM approach, which uses a set of information categories, measurable concepts, and candidate measures to
aid the user in determining relevant information needs and the characteristics of those needs on which to focus
(PSM August 18, 2011).
• The (GQM) approach, which identifies explicit measurement goals. Each goal is decomposed into several
questions that help in the selection of measures that address the question and provide insight into the goal
achievement (Park, Goethert, and Florac 1996).
Measurement 412
• Software Productivity Center’s (SPC's) 8-step Metrics Program, which also includes stating the goals and defining
measures needed to gain insight for achieving the goals (SPC 2011).
The following are good sources for candidate measures that address information needs and measurable
concepts/questions:
• PSM Web Site (PSM 2011)
• PSM Guide, Version 4.0, Chapters 3 and 5 (PSM 2000)
• SE Leading Indicators Guide, Version 2.0, Section 3 (Roedler et al. 2010)
• Technical Measurement Guide, Version 1.0, Section 10 (Roedler and Jones 2005, 1-65)
• Safety Measurement (PSM White Paper), Version 3.0, Section 3.4 (Murdoch 2006, 60)
• Security Measurement (PSM White Paper), Version 3.0, Section 7 (Murdoch 2006, 67)
• Measuring Systems Interoperability, Section 5 and Appendix C (Kasunic and Anderson 2004)
• Measurement for Process Improvement (PSM Technical Report), version 1.0, Appendix E (Statz 2005)
The INCOSE SE Measurement Primer (Frenz et al. 2010) provides a list of attributes of a good measure with
definitions for each attribute; these attributes include relevance, completeness, timeliness, simplicity, cost
effectiveness, repeatability, and accuracy. Evaluating candidate measures against these attributes can help assure the
selection of more effective measures.
The details of each measure need to be unambiguously defined and documented. Templates for the specification of
measures and indicators are available on the PSM website (2011) and in Goethert and Siviy (2004).
Perform Measurement
This activity focuses on the collection and preparation of measurement data, measurement analysis, and the
presentation of the results to inform decision makers. The preparation of the measurement data includes verification,
normalization, and aggregation of the data, as applicable. Analysis includes estimation, feasibility analysis of plans,
and performance analysis of actual data against plans.
The quality of the measurement results is dependent on the collection and preparation of valid, accurate, and
unbiased data. Data verification, validation, preparation, and analysis techniques are discussed in PSM (2011) and
SEI (2010). Per TL 9000, Quality Management System Guidance, The analysis step should integrate quantitative
measurement results and other qualitative project information, in order to provide managers the feedback needed
for effective decision making (QuEST Forum 2012, 5-10). This provides richer information that gives the users the
broader picture and puts the information in the appropriate context.
There is a significant body of guidance available on good ways to present quantitative information. Edward Tufte
has several books focused on the visualization of information, including The Visual Display of Quantitative
Information (Tufte 2001).
Other resources that contain further information pertaining to understanding and using measurement results include
• PSM (2011)
• ISO/IEC/IEEE 15939, clauses 4.3.3 and 4.3.4
• Roedler and Jones (2005), sections 6.4, 7.2, and 7.3
Evaluate Measurement
This activity involves the analysis of information that explains the periodic evaluation and improvement of the
measurement process and specific measures. One objective is to ensure that the measures continue to align with the
business goals and information needs, as well as provide useful insight. This activity should also evaluate the SE
measurement activities, resources, and infrastructure to make sure it supports the needs of the project and
organization. Refer to PSM (2011) and Practical Software Measurement: Objective Information for Decision Makers
(McGarry et al. 2002) for additional detail.
Measurement 413
Systems Engineering Leading Indicators

Leading indicators are aimed at providing predictive insight that pertains to an information need. A SE leading
indicator is a measure for evaluating the effectiveness of a how a specific activity is applied on a project in a manner
that provides information about impacts that are likely to affect the system performance objectives (Roedler et al.
2010). Leading indicators may be individual measures or collections of measures and associated analysis that
provide future systems engineering performance insight throughout the life cycle of the system; they support the
effective management of systems engineering by providing visibility into expected project performance and potential
future states (Roedler et al. 2010).
As shown in Figure 2, a leading indicator is composed of characteristics, a condition, and a predicted behavior. The
characteristics and conditions are analyzed on a periodic or as-needed basis to predict behavior within a given
confidence level and within an accepted time range into the future. More information is also provided by Roedler et
al. (2010).
Figure 2. Composition of a Leading Indicator (Roedler et al. 2010). Reprinted with permission of the International Council on
[2] [1]
Systems Engineering (INCOSE ) and Practical Software and Systems Measurement (PSM ). All other rights are reserved by the
copyright owner.
Technical Measurement
Technical measurement is the set of measurement activities used to provide information about progress in the
definition and development of the technical solution, ongoing assessment of the associated risks and issues, and the
likelihood of meeting the critical objectives of the acquirer. This insight helps an engineer make better decisions
throughout the life cycle of a system and increase the probability of delivering a technical solution that meets both
the specified requirements and the mission needs. The insight is also used in trade-off decisions when performance is
not within the thresholds or goals.
Measurement 414
Technical measurement includes measures of effectiveness (MOEs), measures of performance (MOPs), and
technical performance measures (TPMs) (Roedler and Jones 2005, 1-65). The relationships between these types of
technical measures are shown in Figure 3 and explained in the reference for Figure 3. Using the measurement
process described above, technical measurement can be planned early in the life cycle and then performed
throughout the life cycle with increasing levels of fidelity as the technical solution is developed, facilitating
predictive insight and preventive or corrective actions. More information about technical measurement can be found
in the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, System Analysis, Design, Development: Concepts, Principles, and
Practices, and the Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide (NASA December 2007, 1-360, Section 6.7.2.2;
Wasson 2006, Chapter 34; Roedler and Jones 2005).
Figure 3. Relationship of the Technical Measures (Roedler et al 2010). Reprinted with permission of the International Council on
[1] [1]
Systems Engineering (INCOSE ) and Practical Software and Systems Measurement (PSM ). All other rights are reserved by the
copyright owner.
Service Measurement
The same measurement activities can be applied for service measurement; however, the context and measures will be
different. Service providers have a need to balance efficiency and effectiveness, which may be opposing objectives.
Good service measures are outcome-based, focus on elements important to the customer (e.g., service availability,
reliability, performance, etc.), and provide timely, forward-looking information.
For services, the terms critical success factors (CSF) and key performance indicators (KPI) are used often when
discussing measurement. CSFs are the key elements of the service or service infrastructure that are most important to
achieve the business objectives. KPIs are specific values or characteristics measured to assess achievement of those
objectives.
Measurement 415
More information about service measurement can be found in the Service Design and Continual Service
Improvement volumes of BMP (2010, 1). More information on service SE can be found in the Service Systems
Engineering article.

SE measurement has linkages to other SEM topics. The following are a few key linkages adapted from Roedler and
Jones (2005):
• Planning – SE measurement provides the historical data and supports the estimation for, and feasibility analysis
of, the plans for realistic planning.
• Assessment and Control – SE measurement provides the objective information needed to perform the assessment
and determination of appropriate control actions. The use of leading indicators allows for early assessment and
control actions that identify risks and/or provide insight to allow early treatment of risks to minimize potential
impacts.
• Risk Management – SE risk management identifies the information needs that can impact project and
organizational performance. SE measurement data helps to quantify risks and subsequently provides information
about whether risks have been successfully managed.
• Decision Management – SE Measurement results inform decision making by providing objective insight.
Key pitfalls and good practices related to SE measurement are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing SE Measurement are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Measurement Pitfalls. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
Golden Measures • Looking for the one measure or small set of measures that applies to all projects.
• No one-size-fits-all measure or measurement set exists.
• Each project has unique information needs (e.g., objectives, risks, and issues).
• The one exception is that, in some cases with consistent product lines, processes, and information needs, a small core
set of measures may be defined for use across an organization.
Single-Pass • Viewing measurement as a single-pass activity.

Perspective • To be effective, measurement needs to be performed continuously, including the periodic identification and
prioritization of information needs and associated measures.
Unknown Information • Performing measurement activities without the understanding of why the measures are needed and what information
Need they provide.
• This can lead to wasted effort.
Inappropriate Usage • Using measurement inappropriately, such as measuring the performance of individuals or making interpretations
without context information.
• This can lead to bias in the results or incorrect interpretations.
Measurement 416
Good Practices
Some good practices gathered from the references are provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Measurement Good Practices. (SEBoK Original)

Name Description
Periodic Review • Regularly review each measure collected.
Action Driven • Measurement by itself does not control or improve process performance.
• Measurement results should be provided to decision makers for appropriate action.
Integration into • SE Measurement should be integrated into the project as part of the ongoing project business rhythm.
Project Processes • Data should be collected as processes are performed, not recreated as an afterthought.
Timely Information • Information should be obtained early enough to allow necessary action to control or treat risks, adjust tactics and
strategies, etc.
• When such actions are not successful, measurement results need to help decision-makers determine contingency actions
or correct problems.
Relevance to • Successful measurement requires the communication of meaningful information to the decision-makers.
Decision Makers • Results should be presented in the decision-makers’ preferred format.
• Allows accurate and expeditious interpretation of the results.
Data Availability • Decisions can rarely wait for a complete or perfect set of data, so measurement information often needs to be derived
from analysis of the best available data, complemented by real-time events and qualitative insight (including experience).
Historical Data • Use historical data as the basis of plans, measure what is planned versus what is achieved, archive actual achieved results,
and use archived data as a historical basis for the next planning effort.
Information Model • The information model defined in ISO/IEC/IEEE (2007) provides a means to link the entities that are measured to the
associated measures and the identified information need, and also describes how the measures are converted into
indicators that provide insight to decision-makers.
Additional information can be found in the Systems Engineering Measurement Primer, Section 4.2 (Frenz et al.
2010), and INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, Section 5.7.1.5 (2012).
References
Works Cited
Frenz, P., G. Roedler, D.J. Gantzer, P. Baxter. 2010. Systems Engineering Measurement Primer: A Basic
Introduction to Measurement Concepts and Use for Systems Engineering. Version 2.0. San Diego, CA: International
Council on System Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE‐TP‐2010‐005‐02. Accessed April 13, 2015 at http:/ / www.
incose.org/ProductsPublications/techpublications/PrimerMeasurement.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2007. Systems and software engineering - Measurement process. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC/IEEE
15939:2007.
Kasunic, M. and W. Anderson. 2004. Measuring Systems Interoperability: Challenges and Opportunities.
Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
Measurement 417
McGarry, J., D. Card, C. Jones, B. Layman, E. Clark, J. Dean, F. Hall. 2002. Practical Software Measurement:
Objective Information for Decision Makers. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.
Park, R.E., W.B. Goethert, and W.A. Florac. 1996. Goal-Driven Software Measurement – A Guidebook. Pittsburgh,
PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-96-BH-002.
PSM. 2011. "Practical Software and Systems Measurement." Accessed August 18, 2011. Available at: http:/ / www.
psmsc.com/.
PSM. 2000. Practical Software and Systems Measurement (PSM) Guide, version 4.0c. Practical Software and
System Measurement Support Center. Available at: http://www.psmsc.com/PSMGuide.asp.
PSM Safety & Security TWG. 2006. Safety Measurement, version 3.0. Practical Software and Systems
Measurement. Available at: http:/ / www. psmsc. com/ Downloads/ TechnologyPapers/ SafetyWhitePaper_v3. 0.
pdf.
PSM Safety & Security TWG. 2006. Security Measurement, version 3.0. Practical Software and Systems
Measurement. Available at: http:/ / www. psmsc. com/ Downloads/ TechnologyPapers/ SecurityWhitePaper_v3. 0.
pdf.
QuEST Forum. 2012. Quality Management System (QMS) Measurements Handbook, Release 5.0. Plano, TX, USA:
Quest Forum.
Roedler, G., D. Rhodes, C. Jones, and H. Schimmoller. 2010. Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide,
version 2.0. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE),
INCOSE-TP-2005-001-03.
Roedler, G. and C. Jones. 2005. Technical Measurement Guide, version 1.0. San Diego, CA, USA: International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-020-01.
SEI. 2010. "Measurement and Analysis Process Area" in Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for
(CMU).
Software Productivity Center, Inc. 2011. Software Productivity Center web site. August 20, 2011. Available at: http:/
/www.spc.ca/.
Statz, J. et al. 2005. Measurement for Process Improvement, version 1.0. York, UK: Practical Software and Systems
Measurement (PSM).
Tufte, E. 2006. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT, USA: Graphics Press.
Wasson, C. 2005. System Analysis, Design, Development: Concepts, Principles, and Practices. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Primary References
Frenz, P., G. Roedler, D.J. Gantzer, P. Baxter. 2010. Systems Engineering Measurement Primer: A Basic
Introduction to Measurement Concepts and Use for Systems Engineering. Version 2.0. San Diego, CA: International
Council on System Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE‐TP‐2010‐005‐02. Accessed April 13, 2015 at http:/ / www.
incose.org/ProductsPublications/techpublications/PrimerMeasurement.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2007. Systems and Software Engineering - Measurement Process. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15939:2007.
PSM. 2000. Practical Software and Systems Measurement (PSM) Guide, version 4.0c. Practical Software and
System Measurement Support Center. Available at: http://www.psmsc.com.
Measurement 418
version 2.0. San Diego, CA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2005-001-03.
Roedler, G. and C. Jones. 2005. Technical Measurement Guide, version 1.0. San Diego, CA: International Council
on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-020-01.
Kasunic, M. and W. Anderson. 2004. Measuring Systems Interoperability: Challenges and Opportunities.
Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
McGarry, J. et al. 2002. Practical Software Measurement: Objective Information for Decision Makers. Boston, MA,
USA: Addison-Wesley.
NASA. 2007. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. Washington, DC, USA: National Aeronautics and Space
Park, Goethert, and Florac. 1996. Goal-Driven Software Measurement – A Guidebook. Pittsburgh, PA, USA:
Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), CMU/SEI-96-BH-002.
PSM. 2011. "Practical Software and Systems Measurement." Accessed August 18, 2011. Available at: http:/ / www.
psmsc.com/.
PSM Safety & Security TWG. 2006. Safety Measurement, version 3.0. Practical Software and Systems
Measurement. Available at: http:/ / www. psmsc. com/ Downloads/ TechnologyPapers/ SafetyWhitePaper_v3. 0.
pdf.
PSM Safety & Security TWG. 2006. Security Measurement, version 3.0. Practical Software and Systems
Measurement. Available at: http:/ / www. psmsc. com/ Downloads/ TechnologyPapers/ SecurityWhitePaper_v3. 0.
pdf.
(CMU).
Software Productivity Center, Inc. 2011. Software Productivity Center web site. August 20, 2011. Available at: http:/
/www.spc.ca/.
Statz, J. 2005. Measurement for Process Improvement, version 1.0. York, UK: Practical Software and Systems
Measurement (PSM).
Tufte, E. 2006. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT, USA: Graphics Press.
Wasson, C. 2005. System Analysis, Design, Development: Concepts, Principles, and Practices. Hoboken, NJ, USA:

References
[1] http:/ / www. psmsc. com
[2] http:/ / www. incose. com
419
Knowledge Area: Business and Mission

Analysis
Business and Mission Analysis

Lead Author: Garry Roedler, Contributing Author: Rick Adcock
Concept Definition is the set of systems engineering (SE) activities in which the problem space and the needs and
requirements of the business or enterprise and stakeholders are closely examined. The activities are grouped and
described as generic processes which include Mission Analysis and Stakeholder Needs and Requirements. Concept
Definition begins before any formal definition of the system-of-interest (SoI) is developed.
Mission Analysis focuses on the needs and requirements of business or enterprise — that is, on defining the problem
or opportunity that exists (in what is often called the problem space or problem situation), as well as understanding
the constraints on and boundaries of the selected system when it is fielded (in what is often called the solution
space). The Stakeholder Needs and Requirements process explores and defines the operational aspects of a potential
solution for the stakeholders from their point of view, independent of any specific solution. In these two Concept
Definition activities, business or enterprise decision makers and other stakeholders describe what a solution should
accomplish and why it is needed. Both why and what need to be answered before consideration is given to how the
problem will be addressed (i.e., what type of solution will be implemented) and how the solution will be defined and
developed.
If a new or modified system is needed, then System Definition activities are performed to assess the system. See Life
Cycle Processes and Enterprise Need for further detail on the transformation of needs and requirements from the
business or enterprise and stakeholder levels of abstraction addressed in Concept Definition to the system and system
element level of abstraction addressed in System Definition.
The specific activities and sequence of Concept Definition activities and their involvement with the life cycle
activities of any system, and in particular the close integration with System Definition activities, will be dependent
upon the type of life cycle model being utilized. See Applying Life Cycle Processes for further discussion of the
concurrent, iterative and recursive nature of these relationships.
Topics
• Business or Mission Analysis
• Stakeholder Needs and Requirements
See the article Matrix of Implementation Examples for a mapping of case studies and vignettes included in Part 7 as
well as topics covered in Part 3.
Concept Definition Activities

There are two primary activities discussed under concept definition: Mission Analysis and the definition of
Stakeholder Needs and Requirements:
1. Mission Analysis begins an iteration of the life cycle of a potential SoI that could solve a problem or realize an
opportunity for developing a new product, service, or enterprise. These activities assist business or enterprise
decision makers to define the problem space, identify the stakeholders, develop preliminary operational concepts,
and distinguish environmental conditions and constraints that bound the solution space. In other words, mission
analysis takes the enterprise capability gap or opportunity and defines the problem/opportunity in a manner that
provides a common understanding encapsulated in what are referred to as “business or mission needs.” Business
or mission needs are then used to produce a clear, concise, and verifiable set of business requirements.
2. The Stakeholder Needs and Requirements activity works with stakeholders across the life cycle to elicit and
capture a set of needs, expectations, goals, or objectives for a desired solution to the problem or opportunity,
referred to as "stakeholder needs". The stakeholder needs are used to produce a clear, concise, and verifiable set
of stakeholder requirements. Stakeholder needs and requirements identify and define the needs and requirements
of the stakeholders in a manner that enables the characterization of the solution alternatives.
Mission Analysis takes the business and stakeholders' needs and requirements and carries the analysis down from
problem space to solution space, including concept, mission, and boundary or context so that a solution concept (at
the black-box level) can be selected from the alternatives. Figure 1 in the Mission Analysis topic depicts this
interaction. The products and artifacts produced during Concept Definition are then used in System Definition.
The different aspects of how systems thinking is applicable to concept definition are discussed in SEBoK Part 2. In
particular, the use of a combination of hard system and soft system approaches depending on the type of problem or
class of solution is discussed in Identifying and Understanding Problems and Opportunities and the contrast between
top-down and bottom-up approaches in Synthesizing Possible Solutions.
Drivers of Solution on Problem Definition: Push Versus Pull

Problem definition and solution design depend on each other. Solutions should be developed to respond
appropriately to well-defined problems. Problem definitions should be constrained to what is feasible in the solution
space. System Analysis activities are used to provide the link between problems and solutions.
There are two paradigms that drive the ways in which concept definition is done: push and pull. The pull paradigm is
based on providing a solution to an identified problem or gap, such as a missing mission capability for defense or
infrastructure. The push paradigm is based on creating a solution to address a perceived opportunity, such as the
emergence of an anticipated product or service that is attractive to some portion of the population (i.e. whether a
current market exists or not). This can impact other life cycle processes, such as in verification and validation, or
alpha/beta testing as done in some commercial domains.
As systems generally integrate existing and new system elements in a mixture of push and pull, it is often best to
combine a bottom-up approach with a top-down approach to take into account legacy elements, as well as to identify
the services and capabilities that must be provided in order to define applicable interface requirements and
constraints. This is discussed in Applying Life Cycle Processes.
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
Institute (ANSI)/Electronic Industries Association (EIA), ANSI/EIA 632-1998.
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission/ Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), (IEC), ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148.
Sons.
ISO/IEC. 2003. Systems Engineering – A Guide for The Application of ISO/IEC 15288 System Life Cycle Processes.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC 19760:2003 (E). http://www.hitchins.net/EmergenceEtc.pdf.
ISO/IEC. 2007. Systems Engineering – Application and Management of The Systems Engineering Process. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standards (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
ISO/IEC 26702:2007.
Jackson, S., D. Hitchins, and H. Eisner. 2010. "What is the Systems Approach?" INCOSE Insight. (April 2010):
41-43.

Business or Mission Analysis

Lead Authors: Garry Roedler Contributing Authors: Richard Turner, Alan Faisandier, Scott Jackson, Rick Adcock
The starting point of engineering any system-of-interest (SoI) is understanding the socio-economic and technological
context in which potential problems or opportunities reside. Then, the enterprise strategic goals and stakeholder
needs, expectations, and requirements represent the problem or the opportunity from the viewpoint of business or
enterprise decision makers while also taking into account the views of users, acquirers, and customers.
Mission Analysis (MA) is part of the larger set of concept definition activities - the set of systems engineering
activities in which the problem space and the needs of the business or enterprise and stakeholders are closely
examined. This occurs before any formal definition of the (SoI) is developed but may need to be revisited through
the life cycle. In fact, the activities of Concept Definition determine whether the enterprise strategic goals and
business needs will be addressed by a new system, a change to an existing system, a service, an operational change
or some other solution. The MA activity focuses on the identification of the primary purpose(s) of the solution (its
"mission"), while Stakeholder Needs and Requirements activity explores what capabilities stakeholders desire in
accomplishing the mission and may include some detail on the performance of certain aspects of the solution. MA is
often performed iteratively with the Stakeholder Needs and Requirements activity to better understand the problem
(or opportunity) space, as well as the solution space.
Purpose and Definition

The purpose of MA is to understand a mission/market problem or opportunity, analyze the solution space, and
initiate the life cycle of a potential solution that could address the problem or take advantage of an opportunity. MA
is a type of strategic or operations analysis related to needs, capability gaps, or opportunities and solutions that can
be applied to any organization that evolves its strategy for its business objectives.
MA, in some domains called market analysis or business analysis, is the identification, characterization, and
assessment of an operational problem or opportunity within an enterprise. The definition of a mission or business
function in a problem space frames the solution, both in terms of the direct application to the mission or business
function, and in terms of the context for the resulting solution.
MA is used to define needed (or desired) operational actions, not hardware/software functions; that is, it is focused
on defining the problem space, not the solution space. MA begins with the business vision and Concept of
Operations (ConOps) (IEEE. 1998), and other organization strategic goals and objectives including the mission (or
business function). The primary products of MA are Business or Mission Needs, which are supported by preliminary
life-cycle concepts—including a preliminary acquisition concept, a preliminary operational concept (OpsCon), a
preliminary deployment concept, a preliminary support concept, and a preliminary retirement concept. Business or
Mission Needs are then elaborated and formalized into Business or Mission Requirements. The preliminary
operational concept includes the operational scenarios for the mission and the context in which the solution will
exist.
MA may include mathematical analysis, modeling, simulation, visualization, and other analytical tools to
characterize the intended mission and determine how to best achieve the needs/objectives. MA evaluates alternative
approaches to determine which best supports the stakeholder needs (among both materiel and non-materiel solution
alternatives, also known as product solutions and service/operational solutions). Thus, MA defines the problem space
and analyzes the solution space alternatives using quality attribute constraints driven by the enterprise objectives.
Principles and Concepts
Mission Analysis and Concept of Operations

MA and the terms ConOps and OpsCon are broadly used in U.S. and UK defense and aerospace organizations to
analyze and define how a system is intended to operate, as well as how the major operations or operational scenarios
are intended to be performed. They take into account the strategic, operational, and tactical aspects of the identified
scenarios. ANSI/AIAA G-043A-2012 (ANSI 2012) identifies that the terms ‘concept of operations’ and ‘operational
concept’ are often used interchangeably but notes that an important distinction exists because each has a separate
purpose and is used to meet different ends. The ConOps is at an organizational level, prepared by enterprise
management and refined by business management:
The ConOps, at the organization level, addresses the leadership's intended way of operating the
organization. It may refer to the use of one or more systems (as black boxes) to forward the
organization's goals and objectives. The ConOps document describes the organization's assumptions or
intent in regard to an overall operation or series of operations within the business in regards to the
system to be developed, existing systems, and possible future systems. This document is frequently
embodied in long-range strategic plans and annual operational plans. The ConOps document serves as
a basis for the organization to direct the overall characteristics of future business and systems.
(ISO/IEC 2011)
The ConOps informs the OpsCon, which is drafted by business management in the Mission Analysis activity and
refined by stakeholders in the Stakeholder Needs and Requirements activity:
A system OpsCon document describes what the system will do (not how it will do it) and why (rationale).
An OpsCon is a user-oriented document that describes system characteristics of the to-be-delivered
system from the user's viewpoint. The OpsCon document is used to communicate overall quantitative
and qualitative system characteristics to the acquirer, user, supplier and other organizational elements.
(ISO/IEC 2011)
It should be noted that the OpsCon has an operational focus and should be supported by the development of other
concepts, including a deployment concept, a support concept, and a retirement concept.
In order to determine appropriate technical solutions for evolving enterprise capabilities, systems engineering (SE)
leaders interact with enterprise leaders and operations analysts to understand:
• the enterprise ConOps and future mission, business, and operational (MBO) objectives;
• the characterization of the operational concept and objectives (i.e., constraints, mission or operational scenarios,
tasks, resources, risks, assumptions, and related missions or operations); and
• how specific missions or operations are currently conducted and what gaps exist in those areas.
They then conceptually explore and select from alternative candidate solutions. This interaction ensures a full
understanding of both the problem space and the solution space. The alternative candidate solutions can include a
wide range of approaches to address the need, as well as variants for an approach to optimize specific characteristics
(e.g., using a different distribution of satellite orbit parameters to maximize coverage or events while minimizing the
number of satellites). Analysis, modeling and simulation, and trade studies are employed to select alternative
approaches (NDIA 2010).
The notions of mission analysis, ConOps and OpsCon are also used in industrial sectors, such as aviation
administrations and aeronautic transportation, health care systems, and space with adapted definitions and/or terms,
such as operational concepts, usage concepts and/or technological concepts. For example, “mission analysis” is the
term used to describe the mathematical analysis of satellite orbits performed to determine how best to achieve the
objectives of a space mission (ESA 2008).
In commercial sectors, MA is often primarily performed as market analysis. Wikipedia defines market analysis as a
process that:
. . . studies the attractiveness and the dynamics of a special market within a special industry. It is part of
the industry analysis and this in turn of the global environmental analysis. Through all these analyses,
the chances, strengths, weaknesses, and risks of a company can be identified. Finally, with the help of a
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, adequate business strategies of a
company will be defined. The market analysis is also known as a documented investigation of a market
that is used to inform a firm's planning activities, particularly around decisions of inventory, purchase,
work force expansion/contraction, facility expansion, purchases of capital equipment, promotional
activities, and many other aspects of a company. (Wikipedia Contributors, 2012)
Anywhere these notions are used, it is evident that they are based on fundamental concepts, such as the operational
mode (or state of the system), scenario (of actions), the enterprise level ConOps and the system level operational
concepts, functions, etc. For more explanations about the ConOps and operational concept, refer to Systems and
Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering (ISO/IEC 2011); useful information can be found in Annex A,
"System Operational Concept," and Annex B, "Concept of Operations" (ISO/IEC 2011).
Mission Analysis as Part of Enterprise Strategy Development

Periodically, most enterprises re-evaluate their strategy with respect to their mission, vision, and positioning to
accomplish their goals. Figure 1 shows the interactions of the enterprise strategy development and the concept
definition, including the MA and Stakeholder Needs and Requirements activities that are involved in an iterative
manner to fully develop the strategy and define future capabilities and solutions.
Figure 1. Enterprise Strategy and Concept Development (Roedler 2012). Used with permission of Garry Roedler. All other rights
As the enterprise evolves the strategy, it is essential to conduct the supporting MA or strategic analysis for each
element of the enterprise to determine readiness to achieve future objectives. This analysis examines the current state
to identify any problems or opportunities related to the objective achievement and aids the enterprise in fully
understanding and defining the problem space. The analysis examines the external environment and interfaces in
search of impacts and trends, as well as the internal enterprise to gauge its capabilities and value stream gaps.
Additionally, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis may be performed. As the
problem space is defined, the stakeholder needs are defined and transformed into stakeholder requirements that
define the solutions needed. These requirements include those that address customer and mission needs, the future
state of core processes and capabilities of the enterprise, and the enablers to support performance of those processes
and capabilities. Finally, MA is engaged again to examine the solution space. Candidate solutions that span the
potential solution space are identified, from simple operational changes to various system developments or
modifications. Various techniques are applied to analyze the candidates, understand their feasibility and value, and
select the best alternative.
Process Approach
Activities of the Process

It is necessary to perform the following major activities and tasks during the MA process:
1. Review and understand the enterprise mission, vision, and ConOps.
2. Identify and define any gaps and opportunities related to future evolution of the strategy:
1. Examine the current state to identify any problems or opportunities related to the objective achievement,
including any deficiencies of the existing system.
2. Analyze the context of the actual political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal
(PESTAL) factors, while studying sensitive factors such as cost and effectiveness, security and safety
improvement, performance improvement or lack of existing systems, market opportunities, regulation changes,
users' dissatisfaction, etc. External, internal, and SWOT analysis should be included as well. For the
technological considerations, an appropriate architecture framework representation, such as the U.S.
Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) operations view (DoD 2010), the Zachman
Framework (Rows 1 and 2) (Zachman 2008), and The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)
Architecture Development Method (ADM) (The Open Group 2010) Phases A and B should be included within
the concept definition when performing mission analysis and stakeholders needs and requirements.
3. Define the mission, business, and/or operational problem or opportunity, as well as its context, and any key
parameters, without focusing on a solution.
3. Examine and evaluate the solution space:
1. Identify the main stakeholders (customers, users, administrations, regulations, etc.).
2. Identify high level operational modes or states, or potential use cases.
3. Identify candidate solutions that span the potential solution space, from simple operational changes to various
system developments or modifications.
4. Identify existing systems, products, and services that may address the need for operational or functional
modifications.
5. Deduce what potential expected services may be needed. The SoI is a potential and not yet existing product,
service or enterprise. Additionally, the solution could be an operational change or a change to an existing
product or service.
4. Perform appropriate modeling, simulation, and analytical techniques to understand the feasibility and value of the
alternative candidate solutions. Model or simulate operational scenarios from these services and use cases, and
enrich them through reviews with stakeholders and subject matter experts.
5. Define basic operational concept or market strategy, and/or business models.

1. From previous modeled operational scenarios and operational modes, deduce and express the usage of
operational concepts, or technical concepts.
2. Collect and enrich needs, expectations, scenarios, and constraints.
3. Validate the mission of any potential SoI in the context of any proposed market strategy or business model.
6. Evaluate the set of alternatives and select the best alternative.
1. Perform a trade study of the alternatives to discriminate between the alternatives.
7. Provide feedback on feasibility, market factors, and alternatives for use in completion of the enterprise strategy
and further actions.
8. Define preliminary deployment concept, preliminary support concept, and preliminary retirement concept.
Mission Analysis Artifacts

This process may create several artifacts, such as:
• recommendations for revisions to the enterprise ConOps;
• preliminary operational concept document or inputs;
• mission analysis and definition reports (perhaps with recommendations for revisions of the mission);
• a set of business needs;
• preliminary life-cycle concepts (preliminary operational concept, preliminary deployment concept, preliminary
support concept, and preliminary retirement concept;
• system analysis artifacts (e.g., use case diagrams, context diagrams, sequence/activity diagrams, functional flow
block diagrams);
• trade study results (alternatives analysis);
• market study/analysis reports; and
• a set of business (or mission) requirements (often captured in a business requirement specification).
Methods and Modeling Techniques

MA uses several techniques, such as:
• use case analysis;
• operational analysis;
• functional analysis;
• technical documentation review;
• trade studies;
• modeling;
• simulation;
• prototyping;
• workshops, interviews, and questionnaires;
• market competitive assessments;
• benchmarking; and
• organizational analysis techniques (e.g., strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT analysis), and
product portfolios).
Major pitfalls encountered with mission analysis and marketing analysis are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Major Pitfalls for Mission Analysis. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Description
Wrong level of When delineating the boundaries of the SoI and defining the mission and purpose of the system at the very beginning of
system addressed systems engineering, a classic mistake is to place the system-of-interest at the wrong level of abstraction. The level of
abstraction can be too high or too low (sitting respectively in the upper-system or in a sub-system). This is the consequence of
the principle stating that a system is always included in a larger system and of confusing the purpose and the mission of the SoI.
Operational In commercial products or systems, the lack or insufficient description of operational modes and scenarios (how the SoI will be
modes or used, in which situations, etc.) is often encountered.
scenarios missing
Proven practices with mission analysis and marketing analysis are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Mission Analysis Proven Practices. (SEBoK Original)

Practice Description
Models of operational Using modeling techniques as indicated in sections above for operational scenarios in any kind of SoI (including
scenarios commercial systems).
Models of the context Consider the context of use as a system and force oneself to use modeling techniques for main aspects of the context
(functional, behavioral, physical, etc.).
References
Works Cited
ANSI/AIAA G-043-2012e, Guide to the Preparation of Operational Concept Documents.
DoD. 2010. DoD Architecture Framework, version 2.02. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense. Accessed
August 29, 2012. Available at: http:/ / dodcio. defense. gov/ Portals/ 0/ Documents/ DODAF/ DoDAF_v2-02_web.
pdf.
ESA. 2008. Mission Analysis: Towards a European Harmonization. Paris, France: European Space Agency.
Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http:/ / www. esa. int/ esapub/ bulletin/ bulletin134/
bul134b_schoenmaekers.pdf.
IEEE. 1998. Guide for Information Technology – System Definition – Concept of Operations (ConOps) Document.
Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE 1362:1998.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - Life Cycle Processes - Requirements Engineering.
Commission/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011.
NDIA. 2010. “Mission Analysis Committee Charter”. Website of the National Defense Industrial Association,
Systems Engineering Division, Mission Analysis Committee. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http:/ / www.
ndia. org/ Divisions/ Divisions/ SystemsEngineering/ Documents/ Committees/
Mission%20Analysis%20Committee/Mission%20Analysis%20Committee%20Charter.pdf.
The Open Group. 2011. TOGAF, version 9.1. Hogeweg, The Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing. Accessed August
29, 2012. Available at: https:/ / www2. opengroup. org/ ogsys/ jsp/ publications/ PublicationDetails.
jsp?catalogno=g116.
Wikipedia contributors, "Market analysis," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index.
php?title=Market_analysis&oldid=508583878 (accessed August 29, 2012).
Zachman, J. 2008. "John Zachman's Concise Definition of The Zachman Framework™." Zachman International
Enterprise Architecture. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http:/ / www. zachman. com/
about-the-zachman-framework.
Primary References
Lamsweerde, A. van. 2009. Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software
Specifications. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Center for Quality Management. 1993. "Special Issue on Kano's Methods for Understanding Customer Defined
Quality." Center for Quality Management Journal. 2(4) (Fall 1993).
Faisandier, A. 2012. Systems Opportunities and Requirements. Belberaud, France: Sinergy'Com.
Freeman, R. "Chapter 27: Achieving Strategic Aims: Moving Toward a Process Based Military Enterprise," in
Handbook of Military Industrial Engineering. A.B. Badiru and M.U. Thomas (eds). Boca Raton, FL, USA: Taylor &
Francis Group, CRC Press.
IEEE. 1998. Guide for Information Technology – System Definition – Concept of Operations (ConOps) Document.
Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE 1362:1998.
Hull, M.E.C., K. Jackson, A.J.J. Dick. 2010. Systems Engineering. 3rd ed. London, UK: Springer.
Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. 2008. “Developing the Strategy: Vision, Value Gaps, and Analysis,” Balanced
Scorecard Report. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Publishing, Jan-Feb 2008.
Kano, N. 1984. "Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality." Quality JSQC. 14(2) (October 1984).
Kohda, T., M. Wada, and K. Inoue. 1994. "A Simple Method for Phased Mission Analysis." Reliability Engineering
& System Safety. 45(3): 299-309.
Marca, D. A. and C. L. McGowan. 1987. "SADT: Structured analysis and design techniques." Software Engineering.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
MITRE. 2011. "Concept Development." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 9 March 2012 at http:/ / www. mitre.
org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/concept_development/ [1].
MITRE. 2011. "Requirements Engineering." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 9 March 2012 at http:/ / www.
mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/requirements_engineering/ [2].
MITRE. 2011. "Stakeholder Assessment and Management." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 9 March 2012 at
[3]
transformation_planning_org_change/stakeholder_assessment_management.html/ .
Shupp, J.K. 2003. “The Mission Analysis Discipline: Bringing focus to the fuzziness about Attaining Good
Architectures.” Proceedings of INCOSE 13th International Symposium, July 2003.

References
[1] http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ se_lifecycle_building_blocks/ concept_development/
[2] http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ se_lifecycle_building_blocks/ requirements_engineering/
[3] http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ enterprise_engineering/ transformation_planning_org_change/
stakeholder_assessment_management. html/
Stakeholder Needs Definition

Lead Authors: Alan Faisandier, Garry Roedler, Contributing Author: Rick Adcock
Stakeholder needs and requirements represent the views of those at the business or enterprise operations level—that
is, of users, acquirers, customers, and other stakeholders as they relate to the problem (or opportunity), as a set of
requirements for a solution that can provide the services needed by the stakeholders in a defined environment. Using
enterprise-level life cycle concepts (see Business or Mission Analysis for details) as guidance, stakeholders are led
through a structured process to elicit stakeholder needs (in the form of a refined set of system-level life-cycle
concepts). Stakeholder needs are transformed into a defined set of Stakeholder Requirements, which may be
documented in the form of a model, a document containing textual requirement statements or both.
Stakeholder requirements play major roles in systems engineering, as they:
• Form the basis of system requirements activities.
• Form the basis of system validation and stakeholder acceptance .
• Act as a reference for integration and verification activities.
• Serve as means of communication between the technical staff, management, finance department, and the
stakeholder community.
This topic describes the definition of stakeholder needs and requirements which involves the activities necessary to
elicit and prioritize the needs of the stakeholder(s), and transform those needs into a set of defined stakeholder
requirements. Defining the problem or the issue to be solved, identifying the opportunity for developing a new
solution, or improving a system-of-interest (SoI) must begin prior to starting the activities necessary to define
stakeholder needs and requirements. This means that an initial context of use of the new or modified mission,
operation, or capability has already been characterized (see Business or Mission Analysis). System requirements are
considered in detail during system definition. None of the above can be considered complete until consistency
between the two has been achieved, as demonstrated by traceability, for which a number of iterations may be needed.
Purpose and Definition

The purpose of the Stakeholder Needs and Requirements definition activities are to elicit a set of clear and concise
needs related to a new or changed mission for an enterprise (see mission analysis (MA) for information relevant to
identifying and defining the mission or operation), and to transform these stakeholder needs into verifiable
stakeholder requirements.
Stakeholders may well begin with desires, and expectations that may contain vague, ambiguous statements that are
difficult to use for SE activities. Care must be taken to ensure that those desires and expectations are coalesced into a
set of clear and concise need statements that are useful as a start point for system definition. These need statements
will then need to be further clarified and translated into more engineering-oriented language in a set of stakeholder
requirements to enable proper architecture definition and requirement activities. As an example, a need or an
expectation such as, to easily manoeuvre a car in order to park, will be transformed in a set of stakeholder
requirements to a statement such as, increase the driviability of the car, decrease the effort for handling, assist the
piloting, protect the coachwork against shocks or scratches, etc.
To allow a clear description of the activities of stakeholder needs and requirements to be described, a generic view of
the business teams and roles involved in a typical enterprise has been used below., tThis includes teams such as
business management and business operations;, and roles including requirements engineer and business analyst. For
an overview of these roles and how they enable both stakeholder and business requirements across the layers of a
typical enterprise see Life Cycle Processes and Enterprise Need.
Identifying Stakeholders
Stakeholders of a SoI may vary throughout the life cycle. Thus, in order to get a complete set of needs and
subsequent requirements, it is important to consider all stages of the life cycle model when identifying the
stakeholders or classes of stakeholders.
Every system has its own stages of life, which typically include stages such as concept, development, production,
operations, sustainment, and retirement (for more information, please see Life Cycle Models). For each stage, a list
of all stakeholders having an interest in the future system must be identified. The goal is to get every stakeholder’s
point of view for every stage of the system life in order to consolidate a complete set of stakeholder needs that can be
prioritized and transformed into the set of stakeholder requirements as exhaustively as possible. Examples of
stakeholders are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Stakeholder Identification Based on Life Cycle Stages. (SEBoK Original)

Life Cycle Stage Example of Related Stakeholders
Engineering Acquirer, panel of potential users, marketing division, research and development department, standardization body,
suppliers, verification and validation team, production system, regulator/certification authorities, etc.
Development Acquirer, suppliers (technical domains for components realization), design engineers, integration team, etc.
Transfer for Production Quality control, production system, operators, etc.

or for Use
Logistics and Supply chain, support services, trainers, etc.

Maintenance
Operation Normal users, unexpected users, etc.
Disposal Operators, certifying body, etc.
Identifying Stakeholder Needs

Once business management is satisfied that their needs and requirements are reasonably complete, they pass them on
to the business operations team. Here, the Stakeholder Needs and Requirements (SNR) Definition Process uses the
ConOps, or Strategic Business Plan (SBP), and the life-cycle concepts as guidance. The requirements engineer (RE)
or business analyst (BA) leads stakeholders from the business operations layer through a structured process to elicit
stakeholder needs—in the form of a refined OpsCon (or similar document) and other life-cycle concepts. The RE or
BA may use a fully or partially structured process to elicit specific needs, as described in models such as user stories,
use cases, scenarios, system concepts, and operational concepts.
Identifying Stakeholder Requirements

Stakeholder needs are transformed into a formal set of stakeholder requirements, which are captured as models or
documented as textual requirements in and output typically called a Stakeholder Requirement Specification (StRS),
Stakeholder Requirement Document (StRD) or similar. That transformation should be guided by a well‐defined,
repeatable, rigorous, and documented process of requirements analysis. This requirements analysis may involve the
use of functional flow diagrams, timeline analysis, N2 Diagrams, design reference missions, modeling and
simulations, movies, pictures, states and modes analysis, fault tree analysis, failure modes and effects analysis, and
trade studies.
Collecting Stakeholder Needs and Requirements

There are many ways to collect stakeholder needs and requirements. It is recommended that several techniques or
methods be considered during elicitation activities to better accommodate the diverse set of sources, including:
• Structured brainstorming workshops
• Interviews and questionnaires
• Technical, operational, and/or strategy documentation review
• Simulations and visualizations
• Prototyping
• Modeling
• Feedback from verification and validation processes,
• Review of the outcomes from the system analysis process (ISO/IEC 2015)
• Quality function deployment (QFD) - can be used during the needs analysis and is a technique for deploying the
"voice of the customer”. It provides a fast way to translate customer needs into requirements. (Hauser and
Clausing 1988)
• Use case diagrams (OMG 2010)
• Activity diagrams (OMG 2010)
• Functional flow block diagrams (Oliver, Kelliher, and Keegan 1997)
From the Capture of Stakeholder Needs to the Definition of Stakeholder Requirements

Several steps are necessary to understand the maturity of stakeholder needs and to understand how to improve upon
that maturity. Figure 1 presents the cycle of needs as it can be deduced from Professor Shoji Shiba's and Professor
Noriaki Kano's works and courses, and is adapted here for systems engineering (SE) purposes.
Figure 1. Cycle of Needs (Faisandier 2012). Permission granted by Sinergy'Com. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Figure 1 shows the steps and the position of the stakeholder requirements and system requirements in the
engineering cycle. Below are explanations of each stage of requirements (Faisandier 2012); to illustrate this, consider
this example of a system related to infectious disease identification:
• Real needs are those that lie behind any perceived needs (see below); they are conditioned by the context in
which people live. As an example, a generic need could be the ability to identify infectious diseases easily.Often,
real needs appear to be simple tasks.
• Perceived needs are based on a person’s awareness that something is wrong, that something is lacking, that
improvements could be made, or that there are business, investment, or market opportunities that are not being
capitalized upon. Perceived needs are often presented as a list of organized expectations resulting from an
analysis of the usage conditions for the considered action (see Business or Mission Analysis). Following from the
infectious disease example above, the real need might be perceived as a need to carry out medical tests in
particular circumstances (laboratories, points of care, hospitals, and/or human dispensaries). Since the real need
is seldom clearly expressed, richness of the knowledge of the perceived needs is used as a basis for potential
solutions. This step has to be as complete as possible to cover all the contexts of use.
• Expressed needs originate from perceived needs in the form of generic actions or constraints, and are typically
prioritized. In the example, if safety is the primary concern, the expressed need to protect the operator against
contamination may take priority over other expressed needs such as assist in the execution of tests. When
determining the expressed needs, the analysis of the expected mission or services in terms of operational
scenarios takes place.

• Retained needs are selected from the expressed needs. The selection process uses the prioritization of expressed
needs to achieve a solution or to make attaining solutions feasible. The retained needs allow the consideration of
potential solutions for a SoI. These retained stakeholder intentions do not serve as stakeholder requirements,
since they often lack definition, analysis, and possibly consistency and feasibility. Using the concept of operations
to aid the understanding of the stakeholder intentions at the organizational level and the system operational
concept from the system perspective, requirements engineering leads stakeholders from those initial intentions to
structured and more formal stakeholder requirement statements, ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 Systems and software
engineering - Requirements engineering (ISO 2011). Characteristics of good requirements can be found in (ISO
2011). Exploration of potential solutions must start from this step. The various solutions suggested at this step are
not yet products, but describe means of satisfying the stakeholder requirements. Each potential solution imposes
constraints on the potential future SoI.
• Specified needs, are the translation of the stakeholder needs to represent the views of the supplier, keeping in
mind the potential, preferred, and feasible solutions. Specified needs are translated into system requirements.
Consistent practice has shown this process requires iterative and recursive steps in parallel with other life cycle
processes through the system design hierarchy (ISO 2011).
• Realized needs are the product, service, or enterprise realized, taking into account every specified need (and
hence, the retained needs).
Each class of needs listed above aligns with an area of the SE process. For example, the development of specified
needs requirements is discussed in the System Requirements topic. For more information on how requirements are
used in the systems engineering process, please see the System Definition knowledge area (KA).
Classification of Stakeholder Requirements

Several classifications of stakeholder requirements are possible, e.g. ISO/IEC 29148, section 9.4.2.3 (ISO 2011)
provides a useful set of elements for classification. Examples of classification of stakeholder requirements include:
service or functional, operational, interface, environmental, human factors, logistical, maintenance, design,
production, verification requirements, validation, deployment, training, certification, retirement, regulatory,
environmental, reliability, availability, maintainability, design, usability, quality, safety, and security requirements.
Stakeholders will also be faced with a number of constraints, including: enterprise, business, project, design,
realization, and process constraints.
Process Approach

Major activities and tasks performed during this process include the following:
• Identify the stakeholders or classes of stakeholders across the life cycle.
• Elicit, capture, or consolidate the stakeholder needs, expectations, and objectives as well as any constraints
coming from the mission and business analysis processes.
• Refine the OpsCon and other life-cycle concepts (acquisition concept, deployment concept, support concept, and
retirement concept).
• Prioritize the stakeholder needs.
• Transform the prioritized and retained stakeholder needs into stakeholder requirements.
• Verify the quality of each stakeholder requirement and of the set of stakeholder requirements using the
characteristics of good requirements identified in the System Requirements article.
• Validate the content and the relevance of each stakeholder requirement with corresponding stakeholder
representatives providing rationale (glossary) for the existence of the requirement.
• Identify potential risks (or threats and hazards) that could be generated by the stakeholder requirements (for
further information, see Risk Management).
• Synthesize, record, and manage the stakeholder requirements and potential associated risks.
Artifacts, Methods and Modeling Techniques

• Recommendations to refine the Business Requirement Specification (if necessary)
• Refined life-cycle concepts (OpsCon, acquisition concept, deployment concept, support concept, and retirement
concept)
• Stakeholder requirements (in the form of a model or a document containing textual requirements, such as the
Stakeholder Requirement Specification)
• Stakeholder interview reports
• Stakeholder requirements database
• Stakeholder requirements justification documents (for traceability purposes)
• Input for draft verification and validation plans
The content, format, layout and ownership of these artifacts will vary depending on who is creating them and in
which domains they will be used. Between these artifacts and the outputs of the process, activities should cover the
information identified in the first part of this article.
Major pitfalls encountered with stakeholder requirements are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Major Pitfalls for Stakeholder Requirements. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Description
Operator Role Not Considered Sometimes engineers do not take into account the humans acting as operators inside a system or those who use
the system and are outside of the system. As a consequence, elements are forgotten (e.g. roles of operators).
Exchanges with External The exhaustiveness of requirements can be an issue; in particular, the interfaces with external objects of the
Objects Forgotten context of the system can be forgotten (exchanges of matter, energy, information).
Physical Connections with Within the interface issue, physical connections of the system-of-interest with external objects can be forgotten
External Objects Forgotten (technological constraints).
Forgotten Stakeholders Stakeholders can be forgotten, as everyone thinks of direct users, customers, and suppliers; however, one may
fail to consider those who do not want the system to exist and malevolent persons.
Proven practices with stakeholder requirements are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Stakeholder Requirements Proven Practices. (SEBoK Original)

Involve Stakeholders Involve the stakeholders early in the stakeholder requirements development process.
Presence of Rationale Capture the rationale for each stakeholder requirement.
Analyze Sources before Complete stakeholder requirements as much as possible before starting the definition of the system requirements.
Starting
Modeling Techniques Use modeling techniques as indicated in sections above.
Requirements Consider using a requirements management tool. This tool should have the capability to trace linkages between the
Management Tool stakeholder requirements and the system requirements and to record the source of each stakeholder requirement.
References
Works Cited
Hauser, J. and D. Clausing. 1988. "The House of Quality." Harvard Business Review. (May - June 1988).
OMG. 2010. OMG Systems Modeling Language specification, version 1.2. Needham, MA: Object Management
Group. July 2010.
Oliver, D., T. Kelliher, and J. Keegan. 1997. Engineering complex systems with models and objects. New York, NY,
USA: McGraw-Hill.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and software engineering - Requirements engineering. Geneva, Switzerland:
Primary References
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - Architecture Description. Geneva, Switzerland:
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010.
Buede, D.M. 2009. The engineering design of systems: Models and methods. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
MITRE. 2011. "Requirements Engineering." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 9 March 2012 at http:/ / www.
mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/requirements_engineering/.
MITRE. 2011. "Stakeholder Assessment and Management." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 9 March 2012 at
transformation_planning_org_change/stakeholder_assessment_management.html.
Relevant Videos
• How to Get Project Requirements from Project Stakeholders [1]
• Requirements Engineering Challenges [2]
• Requirements Engineering Processes [3]
• User and System Requirements [4]

References
[1] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=YJ4wCbKJeXY
[2] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=bK-y0CaGkhU
[3] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=GSe4xIy-iBE
[4] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=vpNnZDwC_vs
Stakeholder Requirements Definition

Lead Authors: Alan Faisandier, Garry Roedler, Contributing Author: Richard Turner, Rick Adcock, Ariela Sofer
System requirements are all of the requirements at the system level that describe the functions which the system as a
whole should fulfill to satisfy the stakeholder needs and requirements, and are expressed in an appropriate
combination of textual statements, views, and non-functional requirements; the latter expressing the levels of safety,
security, reliability, etc., that will be necessary.
System requirements play major roles in systems engineering, as they:
• Form the basis of system architecture and design activities.
• Form the basis of system integration and verification activities.
• Act as reference for validation and stakeholder acceptance.
• Provide a means of communication between the various technical staff that interact throughout the project.
Elicitation of stakeholder requirements starts in Concept Definition and will be initially developed through interview
and mission analysis. System requirements are considered in detail during System Definition. Neither can be
considered complete until consistency between the two has been achieved, as demonstrated by traceability, for which
a number of iterations may be needed.
Definition and Purpose of Requirements

A requirement is a statement that identifies a product or processes operational, functional, or design characteristic or
constraint, which is unambiguous, testable, or measurable and necessary for product or process acceptability (ISO
2007).
To avoid confusion in the multitude of terms pertaining to requirements, consider the following classifications:
• Process Role or State: The role the requirement plays in the definition process; for instance, its position in the
system block (e.g. translated, derived, satisfied) or its state of agreement (e.g. proposed, approved, cancelled).
• Level of Abstraction: The level within the definition process that the requirement stands; for instance,
stakeholder requirement, system requirement, system element requirement.
• Type of Requirement: The nature of the requirement itself; for instance, functional, performance, constraint, etc.
Any single requirement may simultaneously be in a particular state, at a particular level of abstraction, and of a
particular type. For additional explanations about differences between the types of requirements, refer to (Martin
1997, Chapter 2).
Principles Governing System Requirements
Relationship to Stakeholder Requirements and Logical Architecture

A set of stakeholder requirements are clarified and translated from statements of need into engineering-oriented
language in order to enable proper architecture definition, design, and verification activities that are needed as the
basis for system requirements analysis.
The system requirements are based around identification and synthesis of the functions required of any solution
system associated with performance and other quality measures and provide the basis for the assessment of candidate
solutions and verification of the completed system. The system requirements are expressed in technical language that
is useful for architecture and design: unambiguous, consistent, coherent, exhaustive, and verifiable. Of course, close
coordination with the stakeholders is necessary to ensure the translation is accurate and traceability is maintained.
This results in a set of system functions and requirements specifying measurable characteristics which can form the
basis for system realization.
The logical architecture defines system boundary and functions, from which more detailed system requirements can
be derived. The starting point for this process may be to identify functional requirements from the stakeholder
requirements and to use this to start the architectural definition, or to begin with a high-level functional architecture
view and use this as the basis for structuring system requirements. The exact approach taken will often depend on
whether the system is an evolution of an already understood product or service, or a new and unprecedented solution
(see Synthesizing Possible Solutions). However, when the process is initiated it is important that the stakeholder
requirements, system requirements, and logical architecture are all complete, consistent with each other, and
assessed together at the appropriate points in the systems life cycle model.
Traceability and the Assignment of System Requirements during Architecture and Design
Requirements traceability provides the ability to track information from the origin of the stakeholder requirements,
to the top level of requirements and other system definition elements at all levels of the system hierarchy (see
Applying Life Cycle Processes). Traceability is also used to provide an understanding as to the extent of a change as
an input when impact analyses are performed in cases of proposed engineering improvements or requests for change.
During architecture definition and design, the assignment of requirements from one level to lower levels in the
system hierarchy can be accomplished using several methods, as appropriate - see Table 1.
Table 1. Assessment Types for a System Requirement. (SEBoK Original)

Assignment Type Description
for a System
Requirement
Direct Assignment The system requirement from the higher level is directly assigned to a system or a system element for a lower level (e.g. the
color used to paint visible parts of the product).
Indirect The system requirement is distributed across several systems or system elements and the sum of a more complex calculation
Assignment for distribution is equal to the requirement of higher level (e.g. a mass requirement, power distribution, reliability allocation,
(Simply etc.) with sufficient margin or tolerance. A documented and configuration-managed "assignment budget" for each
Decomposed) assignment must be maintained.
Indirect The system requirement is distributed to several systems or system elements using an analysis or mathematical modeling
Assignment technique. The resulting design parameters are assigned to the appropriate systems or system elements (with appropriate
(Modeled and margins). For example, in the case of a radar detection requirement that is being analyzed, these lower-level parameters for
Decomposed) output power, beam size, frequencies, etc. will be assigned to the appropriate hardware and software elements. Again, the
analysis (or model) must be documented and configuration-managed.
Derived Such system requirements are developed during the design activities as a result of the decision of the design team, not the
Requirement (from stakeholder community. These requirements may include the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) items, existing
Design) systems or system elements in inventory, common components, and similar design decisions in order to produce a "best
value" solution for the customer. As such, these derived requirements may not directly trace to a stakeholder requirement,
but they do not conflict with a stakeholder requirement or a constraint.
Classification of System Requirements

Several classifications of system requirements are possible, depending on the requirements definition methods and/or
the architecture and design methods being applied. (ISO 2011) provides a classification which is summarized in
Table 2 (see references for additional classifications).
Table 2. Example of System Requirements Classification. (SEBoK Original)

Types of System Description
Requirement
Functional Describe qualitatively the system functions or tasks to be performed in operation.

Requirements
Performance Define quantitatively the extent, or how well and under what conditions a function or task is to be performed (e.g. rates,
Requirements velocities). These are quantitative requirements of system performance and are verifiable individually. Note that there may
be more than one performance requirement associated with a single function, functional requirement, or task.
Usability Define the quality of system use (e.g. measurable effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction criteria).
Requirements
Interface Define how the system is required to interact or to exchange material, energy, or information with external systems (external
Requirements interface), or how system elements within the system, including human elements, interact with each other (internal
interface). Interface requirements include physical connections (physical interfaces) with external systems or internal system
elements supporting interactions or exchanges.
Operational Define the operational conditions or properties that are required for the system to operate or exist. This type of requirement
Requirements includes: human factors, ergonomics, availability, maintainability, reliability, and security.
Modes and/or States Define the various operational modes of the system in use and events conducting to transitions of modes.
Requirements
Adaptability Define potential extension, growth, or scalability during the life of the system.
Requirements
Physical Define constraints on weight, volume, and dimension applicable to the system elements that compose the system.
Constraints
Design Constraints Define the limits on the options that are available to a designer of a solution by imposing immovable boundaries and limits
(e.g., the system shall incorporate a legacy or provided system element, or certain data shall be maintained in an online
repository).
Environmental Define the environmental conditions to be encountered by the system in its different operational modes. This should address
Conditions the natural environment (e.g. wind, rain, temperature, fauna, salt, dust, radiation, etc.), induced and/or self-induced
environmental effects (e.g. motion, shock, noise, electromagnetism, thermal, etc.), and threats to societal environment (e.g.
legal, political, economic, social, business, etc.).
Logistical Define the logistical conditions needed by the continuous utilization of the system. These requirements include sustainment
Requirements (provision of facilities, level support, support personnel, spare parts, training, technical documentation, etc.), packaging,
handling, shipping, transportation.
Policies and Define relevant and applicable organizational policies or regulatory requirements that could affect the operation or
Regulations performance of the system (e.g. labor policies, reports to regulatory agency, health or safety criteria, etc.).
Cost and Schedule Define, for example, the cost of a single exemplar of the system, the expected delivery date of the first exemplar, etc.
Constraints
Requirements Management
Requirements management is performed to ensure alignment of the system and system element requirements with
other representations, analyses, and artifacts of the system. It includes providing an understanding of the
requirements, obtaining commitment, managing changes, maintaining bi-directional traceability among the
requirements and with the rest of the system definition, and alignment with project resources and schedule.
There are many tools available to provide a supporting infrastructure for requirements management; the best choice
is the one that matches the processes of the project or enterprise. Requirements management is also closely tied to
configuration management for baseline management and control. When the requirements have been defined,
documented, and approved, they need to be put under baseline management and control. The baseline allows the
project to analyze and understand the impact (technical, cost, and schedule) of ongoing proposed changes.
Process Approach
Purpose and Principle of the Approach

The purpose of the system requirements analysis process is to transform the stakeholder, user-oriented view of
desired services and properties into a technical view of the product that meets the operational needs of the user. This
process builds a representation of the system that will meet stakeholder requirements and that, as far as constraints
permit, does not imply any specific implementation. It results in measurable system requirements that specify, from
the supplier’s perspective, what performance and non-performance characteristics it must possess in order to satisfy
stakeholders' requirements (ISO 2015).

Major activities and tasks during this process include:
1. Analyzing the stakeholder requirements to check completeness of expected services and operational scenarios,
conditions, operational modes, and constraints.
2. Defining the system requirements and their rationale.
3. Classifying the system requirements using suggested classifications (see examples above).
4. Incorporating the derived requirements (coming from architecture and design) into the system requirements
baseline.
5. Establishing the upward traceability with the stakeholder needs and requirements.
6. Establishing bi-directional traceability between requirements at adjacent levels of the system hierarchy.
7. Verifying the quality and completeness of each system requirement and the consistency of the set of system
requirements.
8. Validating the content and relevance of each system requirement against the set of stakeholder requirements.
9. Identifying potential risks (or threats and hazards) that could be generated by the system requirements.
10. Synthesizing, recording, and managing the system requirements and potential associated risks.
11. Upon approval of the requirements, establishing control baselines along with the other system definition
elements in conjunction with established configuration management practices.
Checking Correctness of System Requirements

System requirements should be checked to gauge whether they are well expressed and appropriate. There are a
number of characteristics that can be used to check system requirements, such as standard peer review techniques
and comparison of each requirement against the set of requirements characteristics, which are listed in Table 2 and
Table 3 of the "Presentation and Quality of Requirements" section (below). Requirements can be further validated
using the requirements elicitation and rationale capture described in the section "Methods and Modeling Techniques"
(below).
Requirements Elicitation and Prototyping

Requirements elicitation requires user involvement and can be effective in gaining stakeholder involvement and
buy-in. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and prototyping are two common techniques that can be applied and
are defined in this section. In addition, interviews, focus groups, and Delphi techniques are often applied to elicit
requirements.
QFD is a powerful technique to elicit requirements and compare design characteristics against user needs (Hauser
and Clausing 1988). The inputs to the QFD application are user needs and operational concepts, so it is essential that
the users participate. Users from across the life cycle should be included to ensure that all aspects of user needs are
accounted for and prioritized.
Early prototyping can help the users and developers interactively identify functional and operational requirements as
well as user interface constraints. This enables realistic user interaction, discovery, and feedback, as well as some
sensitivity analysis. This improves the users' understanding of the requirements and increases the probability of
satisfying their actual needs.
Capturing Requirements Rationale

One powerful and cost-effective technique to translate stakeholder requirements to system requirements is to capture
the rationale for each requirement. Requirements rationale is merely a statement as to why the requirement exists,
any assumptions made, the results of related design studies, or any other related supporting information. This
supports further requirements analysis and decomposition. The rationale can be captured directly in a requirements
database (Hull, Jackson, and Dick 2010).
Some of the benefits of this approach include:
• Reducing the total number of requirements - The process aids in identifying duplicates. Reducing
requirements count will reduce project cost and risk.
• Early exposure of bad assumptions
• Removes design implementation - Many poorly written stakeholder requirements are design requirements in
disguise, in that the customer is intentionally or unintentionally specifying a candidate implementation.
• Improves communication with the stakeholder community - By capturing the requirements rationale for all
stakeholder requirements, the line of communication between the users and the designers is greatly improved.
(Adapted from Chapter 8 of (Hooks and Farry 2000)).
Modeling Techniques
Modeling techniques that can be used when requirements must be detailed or refined, or in cases in which they
address topics not considered during the stakeholder requirements definition and mission analysis include:
• State-charts models (ISO 2011, Section 8.4)
• Scenarios modeling (ISO 2011, Section 6.2.3.1)
• Simulations, prototyping (ISO 2011, Section 6.3.3.2)
• Quality Function Deployment (INCOSE 2011, p. 83)
• Systems Modeling Language (SysML) sequence diagrams, activity diagrams, use cases, state machine diagrams,
requirements diagrams (OMG 2010)
• Functional Flow Block Diagram for operational scenarios (Oliver, Kelliher, and Keegan 1997)
Presentation and Quality of Requirements

Generally, requirements are provided in a textual form. Guidelines exist for writing good requirements; they include
recommendations about the syntax of requirements statements, wording (exclusions, representation of concepts,
etc.), and characteristics (specific, measurable, achievable, feasible, testable, etc.). Refer to (INCOSE 2011, Section
4.2.2.2) and (ISO 2011).
There are several characteristics of both requirements and sets of requirements that are used to aid their development
and to verify the implementation of requirements into the solution. Table 3 provides a list and descriptions of the
characteristics for individual requirements and Table 4 provides a list and descriptions of characteristics for a set of
requirements, as adapted from (ISO 2011, Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6).
Table 3. Characteristics of Individual Requirements. (SEBoK Original)

Characteristic Description
Necessary The requirement defines an essential capability, characteristic, constraint, and/or quality factor. If it is not included in the set of
requirements, a deficiency in capability or characteristic will exist, which cannot be fulfilled by implementing other requirements
Appropriate The specific intent and amount of detail of the requirement is appropriate to the level of the entity to which it refers (level of
abstraction). This includes avoiding unnecessary constraints on the architecture or design to help ensure implementation
independence to the extent possible
Unambiguous The requirement is stated in such a way so that it can be interpreted in only one way
Complete The requirement sufficiently describes the necessary capability, characteristic, constraint, or quality factor to meet the entity need
without needing other information to understand the requirement
Singular The requirement should state a single capability, characteristic, constraint, or quality factor
Feasible The requirement can be realized within entity constraints (e.g., cost, schedule, technical, legal, regulatory) with acceptable risk
Verifiable The requirement is structured and worded such that its realization can be proven (verified) to the customer’s satisfaction at the level
at which the requirement exists
Correct The requirement must be an accurate representation of the entity need from which it was transformed
Conforming The individual requirements should conform to an approved standard template and style for writing requirements, when applicable
Note: Traceability is considered by some sources as a characteristic (ISO 2011). However, a recent viewpoint is that
Traceability is actually an attribute of a requirement; that is, something that is appended to the requirement, not an
intrinsic characteristic of a requirement (INCOSE 2011). The traceability characteristic or attribute is defined as: The
requirement is upwards traceable to specific documented stakeholder statement(s) of need, higher tier requirement,
or another source (e.g., a trade or design study). The requirement is also downwards traceable to the specific
requirements in the lower tier requirements specifications or other system definition artifacts. That is, all parent-child
relationships for the requirement are identified in tracing such that the requirement traces to its source and
implementation.
Table 4. Characteristics of a Set of Requirements. (SEBoK Original)

Characteristic Description
Complete The requirement set stands alone such that it sufficiently describes the necessary capabilities, characteristics, constraints, and/or
quality factors to meet the entity needs without needing other information. In addition, the set does not contain any to be
defined (TBD), to be specified (TBS), or to be resolved (TBR) clauses.
Consistent The set of requirements contains individual requirements that are unique, do not conflict with or overlap with other
requirements in the set, and the units and measurement systems they use are homogeneous. The language used within the set of
requirements is consistent, i.e., the same word is used throughout the set to mean the same thing.
Feasible The requirement set can be realized within entity constraints (e.g., cost, schedule, technical, legal, regulatory) with acceptable
risk. (Note: Feasible includes the concept of "affordable".)
Comprehensible The set of requirements must be written such that it is clear as to what is expected by the entity and its relation to the system of
which it is a part.
Able to be It must be able to be proven the requirement set will lead to the achievement of the entity needs within the constraints (such as
validated cost, schedule, technical, legal and regulatory compliance).
Requirements in Tables
Requirements may be provided in a table, especially when specifying a set of parameters for the system or a system
element. It is good practice to make standard table templates available. For tables, the following conventions apply:
• Invoke each requirements table in the requirements set that clearly points to the table.
• Identify each table with a unique title and table number.
• Include the word “requirements” in the table title.
• Identify the purpose of the table in the text immediately preceding it and include an explanation of how to read
and use the table, including context and units.
• For independent-dependent variable situations, organize the table in a way that best accommodates the use of the
information.
• Each cell should contain, at most, a single requirement.
Requirements in Flow Charts

Flow charts often contain requirements in a graphical form. These requirements may include logic that must be
incorporated into the system, operational requirements, process or procedural requirements, or other situations that
are best defined graphically by a sequence of interrelated steps. For flow charts, the following conventions apply:
• Invoke flow charts in the requirements set that clearly points to the flow chart.
• Identify each flow chart with a unique title and figure number.
• Include the word “requirements” in the title of the flow chart.
• Clearly indicate and explain unique symbols that represent requirements in the flow chart.
Requirements in Drawings
Drawings also provide a graphical means to define requirements. The type of requirement defined in a drawing
depends on the type of drawing. The following conventions apply:
• Use drawings when they can aid in the description of the following:
• Spatial Requirements
• Interface Requirements
• Layout Requirements
• Invoke drawings in the requirements set that clearly point to the drawing.
Artifacts
• System Requirements Document
• System Requirements Justification Document (for traceability purpose)
• System Requirements Database, including traceability, analysis, rationale, decisions, and attributes, where
appropriate.
• System External Interface Requirements Document (this document describes the interfaces of the system with
external elements of its context of use; the interface requirements can be integrated or not integrated to the system
requirements document.
The content, format, layout and ownership of these artifacts will vary depending on who is creating them as well as
in which domain they will be utilized. Between them and the outputs of the process, activities should cover the
information identified in the first part of this article.
Practical Considerations about System Requirements

There are several pitfalls that will inhibit the generation and management of an optimal set of system requirements,
as discussed in Table 5.
Table 5. Major Pitfalls with Definition of System Requirements. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Description
Insufficient Analysis of If the receivers of the stakeholder requirements do not perform a sufficient critical analysis of them, the
Stakeholder Requirements consequence could be difficulties translating them into system requirements and the obligation to come back to the
stakeholders, losing time.
Insufficient Analysis of The operational modes and operational scenarios are not sufficiently analyzed or defined by the person in charge of
Operational Modes and writing the system requirements. Those elements allow the structuring of the system and its use early in the
Scenarios engineering process and help the designer to remember functions and interfaces.
Incomplete Set of System If the system requirements are not sufficiently precise and complete, there is a great risk that the design will not
Requirements have the expected level of quality and that the verification and validation of the system will be delayed.
Lack of Verification Method Delaying the capture of verification methods and events for each system requirement; identification of the
verification approach for each requirement often provides additional insight as to the correctness and necessity of
the requirement itself.
Missing traceability Incorrect or missing traceability of each requirement, both to an upper-level "parent" requirement as well as
allocation to an inappropriate system or system element.
The proven practices in Table 6 have repeatedly been shown to reduce project risk and cost, foster customer
satisfaction, and produce successful system development.
Table 6. Proven Practices for System Requirements. (SEBoK Original)

Involve Involve the stakeholders as early as possible in the system requirements development process.
Stakeholders
Presence of Capture the rationale for each system requirement.

Rationale
Always Complete Check that stakeholder requirements are complete as much as possible before starting the definition of the system
before Starting requirements.
Peer Reviews Organize peer reviews of system requirements with applicable subject matter experts.
Modeling Use modeling techniques as indicated in sections above.

Techniques
Requirements Consider using a requirements management tool, especially for more complex projects. This tool should have the capability
Management Tool to trace linkages between system requirements to display relationships. A requirements management tool is intended to
facilitate and support the systematic managing of system requirements throughout the project life cycle.
Measures for Use typical measures for requirement engineering; for further information, refer to the Systems Engineering Leading
Requirement Indicators Guide (Roedler et al. 2010). Both process and product measures should be used for requirements engineering. To
Engineering get the desired insight to facilitate risk-managed requirements engineering, it may be necessary to use more than one
measure based on the information needs (risks, objectives, issues) for the requirements. Useful measures include:
• Requirements Volatility
• Requirements Trends
• Requirements Verification Progress (plan vs. actual)
• Requirements Validation Progress (plan vs. actual)
• TBD and TBR Closure Per Plan
• Peer Review Defects
References
Works Cited
Hauser, J. and D. Clausing. 1988. "The House of Quality." Harvard Business Review. (May - June 1988).
Hooks, I.F. and K.A. Farry. 2000. Customer-Centered Products: Creating Successful Products through Smart
Requirements Management. New York, NY, USA: American Management Association.
Hull, M.E.C., K. Jackson, A.J.J. Dick. 2010. Systems Engineering, 3rd ed. London, UK: Springer.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.1.
ISO/IEC. 2007. Systems and Software Engineering -- Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of
Software-Intensive Systems. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standards (ISO)/International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC 42010:2007.
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
Martin, J.N. 1997. Systems Engineering Guidebook: A Process for Developing Systems and Products, 1st ed. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
OMG. 2010. OMG Systems Modeling Language Specification, version 1.2. Needham, MA, USA: Object
Management Group. July 2010.
Primary References
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/ Institute of
Lamsweerde, A. van. 2009. Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software
Specifications. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Faisandier, A. 2012. Systems Opportunities and Requirements. Belberaud, France: Sinergy'Com.
Hooks, I.F. and K.A. Farry. 2000. Customer-Centered Products: Creating Successful Products through Smart
Requirements Management. New York, NY, USA: American Management Association.
Hull, M.E.C., K. Jackson, A.J.J. Dick. 2010. Systems Engineering, 3rd ed. London, UK: Springer.
version 2.0. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE),
INCOSE-TP-2005-001-03.
SEI. 2007. "Requirements Management Process Area" and "Requirements Development Process Area." in
Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for Development, version 1.2. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software
Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
Relevant Videos
• Introduction to Systems Engineering and Requirements [1]

References
[1] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=qaiSB1bdS_8
446
Knowledge Area: System Architecture

Definition
Logical Architecture
Lead Authors: Alan Faisandier, Garry Roedler, Contributing Author: Rick Adcock
Logical Architecture Model Development may be used as a task of the activity "Develop candidate architectures
models and views," or a sub-process of the System Architecture Definition process (see System Architecture). Its
purpose is to elaborate models and views of the functionality and behavior of the future engineered system as it
should operate while in service. The logical architecture model of a engineered system of interest (SoI) is composed
of a set of related technical concepts and principles that support the logical operation of the system. It may include a
functional architecture view, a behavioral architecture view, and a temporal architecture view. Other additional
views are suggested in architecture frameworks, depending on the domain.
Note: The term Logical Architecture is a contraction of the expression Logical View of the System Architecture.
Concepts and Principles
Functional Architecture Model

A functional architecture model is a set of functions and their sub-functions that defines the transformations
performed by the system to complete its mission.
Function and Input-Output Flow - In the context of System Architecture, functions and input-output flows are
architecture entities. A function is an action that transforms inputs and generates outputs, involving data, materials,
and/or energies. These inputs and outputs are the flow items exchanged between functions. The general
mathematical notation of a function is y = ƒ( x ,t), in which y and x are vectors that may be represented graphically
and t = time.
In order to define the complete set of functions of the system, one must identify all the functions necessitated by the
system and its derived requirements, as well as the corresponding inputs and outputs of those functions. Generally
speaking, there are two kinds of functions:
1. Functions that are directly deduced from functional and interface requirements. These functions express the
expected services of a system necessary to meet its system requirements.
2. Functions that are derived and issued from the alternative solutions of the physical architecture model and are
dependent upon the result of the design; additionally, they rely upon on technology choice to implement the
logical architecture model elements.
Functional Hierarchy/Decomposition of Functions - At the highest level of a hierarchy (Figure 1), it is possible to
represent a system as a unique, central function (defined as the system's mission) that in many ways is similar to a
"black box" ("F0" in plan A-0 in Figure 1). In order to understand, in detail, what the system does, this
"head-of-hierarchy" (F0) is broken down into sub-functions (F1, F2, F3, F4) grouped to form a sub-level of the
hierarchy (plan A0), and so on. Functions of the last level of a functional hierarchy can be called leaf-functions (F21,
F22, F23, F24 in plan A2). Hierarchies (or breakdowns) decompose a complex or global function into a set of
functions for which physical solutions are known, feasible, or possible to imagine.
This view of functional hierarchy represents a static view of functions which would be populated at different levels
over a number of iterations, depending upon the synthesis approach used. In general, it is not created by a single
top-down decomposition. A static functional hierarchy on its own does not represent how effectively the flows of
inputs and outputs are exchanged, and may need to be viewed alongside the other models below.
Figure 1. Decomposition of Functions (Faisandier 2012). Permission granted by Sinergy'Com. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Behavioral Architecture Model

A behavioral architecture model is an arrangement of functions and their sub-functions as well as interfaces (inputs
and outputs) that defines the execution sequencing, conditions for control or data-flow, and performance level
necessary to satisfy the system requirements (ISO/IEC 26702:2007). A behavioral architecture model can be
described as a set of inter-related scenarios of functions and/or operational modes.
Control (Trigger) - A control flow is an element that activates a function as a condition of its execution. The state
of this element, or the condition it represents, activates or deactivates the function (or elements thereof). A control
flow can be a signal or an event, such as a switch being moved to the on position, an alarm, a trigger, a temperature
variation, or the push of a key on a keyboard.
Scenario (of Functions) - A scenario of functions is a chain of functions that are performed as a sequence and
synchronized by a set of control flows to work to achieve a global transformation of inputs into outputs, as seen in
the figures below. A scenario of functions expresses the dynamic of an upper level function. A behavioral
architecture is developed by considering both scenarios for each level of the functional hierarchy and for each level
of the system hierarchy. When representing scenarios of functions and behavioral architecture models, it is
appropriate to use diagrams as modeling techniques, such as functional flow block diagrams (FFBD) (Oliver,
Kelliher, and Keegan 1997) or activity diagrams, developed with SysML (OMG 2010). Figures 2 and 3 provide
examples of these diagrams.
Figure 2. Illustration of a Scenario (eFFBD). (SEBoK Original)
Figure 3. Illustration of a Scenario (Activity Diagram). (SEBoK Original)
Operational Mode - A scenario of functions can be viewed by abstracting the transformation of inputs into outputs
of each function and focusing on the active or non-active state of the function and its controls. This view is called a
scenario of modes, which is a chain of modes performed as a sequence of transitions between the various modes of
the system. The transition from one mode to another is triggered by the arrival of a control flow (event/trigger). An
action (function) can be generated within a transition between two modes following the arrival of an event or a
trigger, as demonstrated in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4. Scenario of Operational Modes (Faisandier 2012). Permission granted

by Sinergy'Com. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Behavioral Patterns - When defining scenarios or behavioral architecture models, architects may opt to recognize
and use known models to represent the expected transformations and behaviors. Patterns are generic basic models
that may be more or less sophisticated depending on the complexity of the treatment (Gamma, Helm, Johnson, and
Vlissides 1995). A pattern can be represented with different notations. Behavioral patterns are classified into several
categories, which can be seen in the following examples (see also SEBoK Part 2: Patterns of Systems Thinking):
• Basic patterns or constructs linking functions - such as sequence, iteration, selection, concurrence, multiple exits,
loops with an exit, and replication.
• Complex patterns - such as monitoring a treatment, exchanging a message, man machine interfaces, modes
monitoring, real-time monitoring of processes, queue management, and continuous monitoring with supervision.
• Failure detection, identification, and recovery (FDIR) patterns - such as passive redundancies, active
redundancies, semi-active redundancies, and treatments with reduced performance.
Temporal Architecture Model

A temporal architecture model is a classification of the functions of a system that is derived according to the
frequency level of execution. Temporal architecture models include the definition of synchronous and asynchronous
aspects of functions. The decision monitoring that occurs inside a system follows the same temporal classification
because the decisions are related to the monitoring of functions.
Temporal and Decisional Hierarchy Concept - Not every function of a system is performed at the same frequency.
The frequencies change depending on the time and the manner in which the functions are started and executed. One
must therefore consider several classes of performance. There are synchronous functions that are executed cyclically
and asynchronous functions that are executed following the occurrence of an event or trigger.
To be more specific, real-time systems and command-control systems combine cyclical operations (synchronous)
and factual aspects (asynchronous). Cyclical operations consist of sharing the execution of functions according to
frequencies, which depend on either the constraints of capture or dispatching the input/output and control flows. Two
types of asynchronous events can be distinguished:
1. Disturbances on High Frequencies (bottom of figure 5) - Decisions that are made at either the level they occur or
one level above. The goal is to deter disturbances from affecting the low frequencies so that the system continues
to achieve its mission objectives. This is the way to introduce exception operations, with the typical example
relating to operations concerns, breakdowns, or failures.
2. Changes on Low Frequencies (top of figure 5) - Decisions pertaining to changes that are made at the upper levels.
The ultimate goal is to transmit them toward bottom levels to implement the modifications. A typical example
relates to operator actions, maintenance operations, etc.
Figure 5. Temporal and Decision Hierarchy Levels (Faisandier 2012). Permission granted by Sinergy'Com. All other
Process Approach
Purpose
The purpose of the Logical Architecture Model Development is to define, select, and synthesize a system’s logical
architecture model to provide a framework against which to verify that a future system will satisfy its system
requirements in all operational scenarios, within which trade-offs between system requirements can be explored in
developing such systems.
Generic inputs to the process include system requirements, generic architecture patterns that architects identify and
use to answer requirements, outcomes from system analysis processes, and feedback from system verification and
validation processes. Depending on the Life Cycle Model that is chosen, there will be iterations through which these
inputs and outputs, and the relationships between them evolve and change throughout the process (see also Applying
Life Cycle Processes).
Generic outputs from the process are either a single logical architecture model or a set of candidate logical
architecture models together with the selected independent logical architecture model and a rationale for its
selection. They include, at minimum, views and models. These involve functional, behavioral and temporal views, a
traceability matrix between logical architecture model elements and system requirements.

• Identify and analyze functional and behavioral elements:
• Identify functions, input-output flows, operational modes, transition of modes, and operational scenarios from
system requirements by analyzing the functional, interface, and operational requirements.
• Define necessary inputs and controls (energy, material, and data flows) to each function and outputs that result
in the deduction of the necessary functions to use, transform, move, and generate the input-output flows.
• Assign system requirements to functional and behavioral elements:
• Formally characterize functions expressions and their attributes through the assignment of performance,
effectiveness, and constraints requirements. In particular, study the temporal aspects from requirements to
assign duration, response time, and frequency to functions.
• Formally characterize the input, output, and control flows expressions and their attributes through assignment
of interface, effectiveness, operational, temporal and constraints requirements.
• Establish traceability between system requirements and these functional and behavioral elements.
• Define candidate logical architecture models for each candidate:
• Analyze operational modes as stated in the system requirements (if any) and/or use previously defined
elements to model sequences of operational modes and the transition of modes. Eventually decompose the
modes into sub-modes and then establish for each operational mode one or several scenarios of functions
recognizing and/or using relevant generic behavioral patterns.
• Integrate these scenarios of functions in order to get a behavioral architecture model of the system (a complete
picture of the dynamic behavior).
• Decompose previously defined logical elements as necessary to look towards implementation.
• Assign and incorporate temporal constraints to previously defined logical elements, such as the period of time,
duration, frequency, response-time, timeout, stop conditions, etc.
• Define several levels of execution frequency for functions that correspond to levels of decision, in order to
monitor system operations, prioritize processing on this time basis, and share out functions among those
execution frequency levels to get a temporal architecture model.
• Perform functional failure modes and effects analysis and update the logical architecture elements as
necessary.
• Execute the models with simulators (when possible) and tune these models to obtain the expected
characteristics.
• Synthesize the selected independent logical architecture model:
• Select the logical architecture by assessing the candidate logical architecture models against assessment criteria
(related to system requirements) and compare them, using the system analysis process to perform assessments
and decision management process for the selection (see the System Analysis and Decision Management
topics). This selected logical architecture model is called independent logical architecture model because, as
much as possible, it is independent of implementation decisions.
• Identify and define derived logical architecture model elements created for the necessity of design and
corresponding with the derived system requirements. Assign these requirements to the appropriate system
(current studied system or external systems).
• Verify and validate the selected logical architecture models (using as executable models as possible), make
corrections as necessary, and establish traceability between system requirements and logical architecture model
elements.
• Feedback logical architecture model development and system requirements. This activity is performed after the
physical architecture model development process:
• Model the allocated logical architecture to systems and system elements, if such a representation is possible,
and add any functional, behavioral, and temporal elements as needed to synchronize functions and treatments.
• Define or consolidate derived logical and physical elements induced by the selected logical and physical
architecture models. Define the corresponding derived requirements and allocate them to appropriate logical
and physical architectures elements. Incorporate these derived requirements into the requirements baselines of
impacted systems.

Logical architecture descriptions use modeling techniques that are grouped under the following types of models.
Several methods have been developed to support these types of models (some are executable models):
• Functional Models – These include models such as the structured analysis design technique (SADT/IDEF0),
system analysis & real time (SA-RT), enhanced Functional Flow Block Diagrams (eFFBD), and the function
analysis system technique (FAST).
• Semantic Models- These include models such as entities-relationships diagrams, class diagrams, and data flow
diagrams.
• Dynamic Models – These include such models as state-transition diagrams, state-charts, eFFBDs, state machine
diagrams (SysML), activity diagrams (SysML) (OMG 2010), and petri nets.
Depending on the type of domain (e.g. defense, enterprise), architecture frameworks provide descriptions that can
help to represent additional aspects/views of architectures - see the section 'Enterprise Architecture Frameworks &
Methodologies' in Enterprise Systems Engineering Key Concepts. See also practical means for using general
templates related to ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 (ISO 2011).
As stated above, the purpose of the logical architecture model is to provide a description of what a system must be
able to do to satisfy the stated need. This should help to ensure that the needs and/or concerns of all stakeholders are
addressed by any solution, and that innovative solutions, as well as those based on current solution technologies, can
be considered. In practice it is human nature for problem stakeholders to push their own agendas and for solution
architects or designers to offer their familiar solutions. If a logical architecture model is not properly enforced with
the chosen life cycle, it is easy for both problem and solution stakeholders to ignore it and revert to their own biases
(see Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering). This is exacerbated if the logical architecture model becomes an end in
its own right or disconnected from the main lifecycle activities. This can occur either through the use of abstract
language or notations, levels of detail, time taken, or an overly complex final architecture that does not match the
purpose for which it was created. If the language, scope, and timeliness of the architecture are not matched to the
problem stakeholder or solution providers, it is easier for them to overlook it. Key pitfalls and good practices which
can help to avoid problems related to logical architecture models are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in developing logical architecture are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Pitfalls with Logical Architecture Development. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Description
Problem Relevance The logical architecture model should relate back to the operational scenarios produced by mission analysis.
Inputs for Architecture The major input for architecture definition activity involves the set of system requirements and the instances in
Model which they do not address the right level of architecture. The consequence is that the architect allows the
requirements to fall to the side and invents a solution with what he or she understands through the input.
Decomposition Too Deep A common mistake made by many beginners in architecture consists of decomposing the functions too deeply or
having too many functions and input/output flows in scenarios or in the functional architecture model of the current
system block.
Not Considering Inputs A common mistake is to consider only the actions supported by functions and decomposing them, while forgetting
and Outputs Together with the inputs and the outputs or considering them too late. Inputs and outputs are integral parts of a function.
Functions
Considering Static Static function decomposition is the smallest functional architecture model task and answers the basic question,
Decomposition of "How is this done?" The purpose of the static decomposition is to facilitate the management of or navigation through
Functions Only the list of functions. The static decomposition should be established only when scenarios have been created and the
logical architecture is close to complete.
Mixing Governance, Governance (strategic monitoring), management (tactical monitoring), and basic operations are often mixed in
Management, and complex systems. Logical architecture model should deal with behavioral architecture model as well as with
Operation temporal architecture model.
Proven Practices
Some proven practices gathered from the references are provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Proven Practices with Logical Architecture Development. (SEBoK Original)

Constitute Scenarios Before constituting a decomposition tree of functions, one must model the behavior of the system, establish scenarios of
of Functions functions, and decompose functions as scenarios of sub-functions.
Analysis and When facing a system that contains a large number of functions, one should attempt to synthesize functions into higher
Synthesis Cycles abstraction levels of functions with the assistance of criteria. Do not perform analysis only; instead, conduct small cycles of
analysis (decomposition) and synthesis. The technique of using scenarios includes this design practice.
Alternate Functional A function (action verb; e.g. "to move") and its state of execution/operational mode (e.g. "moving") are two similar and
and Behavioral complimentary views. Utilize this to consider a behavioral view of the system that allows for the transition from one
Views operational mode to another.
The Order to Create When creating a scenario of functions, it is more efficient to first establish the (control) flow of functions, then to add input
a Scenario of and output flows, and finally to add triggers or signals for synchronization.
Functions
References
Works Cited
Gamma, E., R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. 1995. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented
Software. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.
ISO/IEC. 2007.Systems Engineering – Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standards (ISO)/International Electronical Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC
26702:2007.
OMG. 2010. OMG Systems Modeling Language Specification, version 1.2, July 2010. Available at: http:/ / www.
omg.org/technology/documents/spec_catalog.htm.
Primary References
ISO/IEC. 2007. Systems Engineering – Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standards (ISO)/International Electronical Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC
26702:2007.
Maier, M. and E. Rechtin. 2009. The Art of Systems Architecting, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl-King, and S. Angel. 1977. A Pattern Language:
Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
Buede, D.M. 2009. The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Methods. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
jsp?catalogno=g116.

Physical Architecture
Lead Authors: Alan Faisandier, Rick Adcock
Physical Architecture Model Development may be used as a task of the activity "Develop candidate architectures
models and views," or a sub-process of the System Architecture Definition process (see System Architecture
article). Its purpose is to elaborate models and views of a physical, concrete solution that accommodates the logical
architecture model and satisfies and trades-off system requirements. Once a logical architecture model is defined (see
Logical Architecture Model Development), concrete physical elements have to be identified that can support
functional, behavioral, and temporal features as well as the expected properties of the system deduced from
non-functional system requirements (e.g. constraint of replacement of obsolescence, and/or continued product
support).
A physical architecture model is an arrangement of physical elements, (system elements and physical interfaces) that
provides the solution for a product, service, or enterprise. It is intended to satisfy logical architecture elements and
system requirements ISO/IEC/IEEE 26702 (ISO 2007). It is implementable through technological system elements.
System requirements are allocated to both the logical and physical architectures. The resulting system architecture is
assessed with system analysis and when completed becomes the basis for system realization.
In some cases, particularly when multiple systems are to be defined to a common physical architecture model, one of
the drivers for the physical architecture model may be interface standards; these physical interfaces may well be one
of the most important concerns for these systems. It is quite possible that such interface standards are mandated at a
high level in the system requirements. On the other hand, it is equally possible for standards to be derived during
physical architecture model development and these can be critical enablers for desirable engineering outcomes, such
as: families of systems, technology insertion, interoperability and “open systems”. For example, today’s video, hi-fi,
and computer systems have all benefited from adoption of interface standards. Other examples exist in most fields of
engineering from nuts and bolts, plumbing, electrical installations, rail gauges, TCP/IP, IT systems and software to
modular defense and space systems.
Note: The term Physical Architecture is a contraction of the expression Physical View of the System Architecture.
System Element, Physical Interface, and Physical Architecture Model

A system element is a discrete part of a system that can be implemented to fulfill design properties. A system
element can be hardware, software, data, humans, processes (e.g., processes that provide a service to users),
procedures (e.g., operator instructions), facilities, materials, and naturally occurring entities (e.g., water, organisms,
and minerals), or any combination of these ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (ISO 2015). A physical interface binds two system
elements together; this is similar to a link or a connector. Table 1 provides some examples of system elements and
physical interfaces.
Table 1. Types of System Elements and Physical Interfaces. (SEBoK Original)

Element Product System Service System Enterprise System
System • Hardware Parts (mechanics, electronics, • Processes, Data Bases, • Corporate, Direction, Division, Department,
Element electrical, plastic, chemical, etc.) Procedures, etc. Project, Technical Team, Leader, etc.
• Operator Roles • Operator Roles • IT Components
• Software Pieces • Software Applications
Physical * Hardware Parts, Protocols, Procedures, etc. * Protocols, Documents, etc. * Protocols, Procedures, Documents, etc.
Interface
A complex system composed of thousands of physical and/or intangible parts may be structured in several layers of
systems and system elements. The number of elements in a level of the structure of one system is limited to only a
few, in order to facilitate managing the system definition; a common guideline is five plus or minus two elements
(see illustration in Figure 1).
Figure 1. Layers of Systems and System Elements (Faisandier 2012). Permission granted by Sinergy'Com. All other rights are reserved
A physical architecture model is built from systems, system elements, and all necessary physical interfaces between
these elements, as well as from external elements (neighboring or enabling systems and/or system elements in the
considered layer and concerned elements in the context of the global system-of-interest) - see illustration in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Physical Architecture Model Representation (Faisandier 2012). Permission granted by Sinergy'Com. All other rights are reserved by the
copyright owner.
Design Property
A design property is a property that is obtained during system architecture and created through the assignment of
non-functional requirements, estimates, analyses, calculations, simulations of a specific aspect, or through the
definition of an existing element associated with a system element, a physical interface, and/or a physical
architecture. If the defined element complies with a requirement, the design property will relate to (or may equal) the
requirement. Otherwise, one has to identify any discrepancy that could modify the requirement or design property
and detect any deviations.
Stakeholders have concerns that correspond to the expected behavior of a system within operational, environmental,
and/or physical constraints as well as to more general life cycle constraints. Stakeholder requirements and system
requirements express these concerns as expected capabilities from the system (e.g., usability, interoperability,
security, expandability, environment suitability, etc.). Architects and/or designers identify these capabilities from
requirements and deduce corresponding quantitative or qualitative design properties to properly equip their physical
architecture model (e.g., reliability, availability, maintainability, modularity, robustness, operability, climatic
environment resistance, dimensions limits, etc.). For further discussion on how some of these properties may be
included in architecture and design, please see the article Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes in the Related
Disciplines Part.
Allocation of Logical Elements to Physical Elements and Partitioning

Developing a candidate physical architecture model for a system consists of first identifying the system elements that
can perform functions of the logical architecture model as well as identifying the interfaces capable of carrying out
the input-output flows and control flows. When identifying potential elements, a systems engineer needs to allocate
design properties within the logical architecture; these properties are deduced from the system requirements.
Partitioning and allocation are activities to decompose, gather, or separate functions in order to facilitate the
identification of feasible system elements that support these functions. Either they exist and can be reused or
re-purposed, or they can be developed and technically implemented.
Partitioning and allocation use criteria to find potential affinities between functions. Systems engineers use system
requirements and/or design properties as criteria to assess and select candidate system elements and partitions of
functions, such as similar transformations within the same technology, similar levels of efficiency, exchange of the
same type of input-output flows (information, energy, and materials), centralized or distributed controls, execution
with close frequency level, dependability conditions, environment resistance level, and other enterprise constraints.
A concurrent engineering approach is necessary when several different sets of technologies, knowledge, and skills
are necessary to establish a candidate physical architecture model. This is particularly true during the partition and
allocation of functions to various system elements, in which the systems engineer must account for compatibility
issues and emergent properties. (See SEBoK Part 2: Synthesizing Possible Solutions for a discussion of possible
approaches.)
Developing Candidate Physical Architecture Models

The goal of physical architecture model development activities is to provide the best possible physical architecture
model made of suitable systems, technological system elements, and physical interfaces (i.e., the architecture that
answers, at best, all system requirements, depending on agreed limits or margins of each requirement). The best way
to do this is to produce several candidate physical architecture models, assess and compare them, and then select the
most suitable one.
A candidate physical architecture model is elaborated according to affinity criteria in order to build a set of system
elements (i.e., separate, gather, connect, and disconnect the network of system elements and their physical
interfaces). These criteria are the same as those used for partitioning and allocating functions to system elements.
The physical architecture model development may be focused in different ways, for example, it may address:
• Reduction in the number of physical interfaces
• System elements that can be tested separately
• Compatible technology
• Measures of the proximity of elements in space
• Ease of handling (weight, volume, and transportation facilities)
• Optimization of resources shared between elements
• Modularity (i.e. elements have low interdependence)
• Resilience (i.e. elements which are highly reliable, maintainable or replaceable)
Evaluating and Selecting the Preferred Candidate

Viable physical architecture models enable all required functions or capabilities specified in the logical architecture
model to be realized. Architecture and design activity includes evaluation to obtain a balance among design
properties, costs, risks, etc. Generally, the physical architecture model of a system is determined more strongly by
non-functional requirements (e.g., performance, safety, security, environmental conditions, constraints, etc.) than by
functions. There may be many (physical) ways to establish functions but fewer ways of satisfying non-functional
requirements. The preferred physical architecture model represents the selection of system elements, their physical
relationships, and interfaces. Typically, this physical architecture will still leave further systems engineering to be
undertaken to achieve a fully optimized system after any remaining trade-offs are made and algorithms and
parameters of the system are finalized. Certain analyses (efficiency, dependability, cost, risks, etc.) are required to
get sufficient data that characterize the global behavior and structure of the candidate architectures in regard to
system requirements; this is often broadly referred to as system analysis. Other analyses and assessments require
knowledge and skills from the different involved technologies and specialties (mechanics, electronics, software,
thermodynamics, electro-magnetic compatibility, safety, security etc.). They are performed through corresponding
specialist analysis of the system.
Legacy Systems and Systems of Systems

Few systems come into existence or operate without interacting with others in a system context. These interactions
may be with other operational systems, or maintenance and support systems, which in turn may be legacy (already in
use) or future legacy (under development and likely to operate with the system of interest in the future).
The best chosen approach will be dependent on the strength of interactions between the system-of-interest (SoI) and
its wider context. While these interactions are small, they may be accounted for by defining a set of static external
interface requirements (for example, technical standards) with which the system must comply, by including these as
constraints in the system requirements and ensuring compliance through design assurance.
Where the interactions are more intense (for example, where continuous information is to be exchanged with other
systems), these will have to be recognized as part of a system of systems context and will instead be considered as
part of an enterprise systems engineering approach.
Another important consideration may be the sharing of technology or system elements between the SoI and other
systems, often as part of a family of systems (many examples occur in automotive and aerospace industries) or the
re-use of system elements from existing legacy. Here a degree of top-down or middle-out design work will be
necessary to ensure the system of interest embodies the required system elements, while conforming as far as
possible to the stakeholder and system requirements, with any compromises being understood and managed.
If a System-of-Interest is intended to be used in one or more service systems or system of systems configurations,
this will affect its physical architecture model. One of the features of these SoS is the late binding of component
systems in use. Such component systems must be architected with open or configurable interfaces, must have clearly
defined functions packaged in such a way as to be relevant to the SoS using them, and must include some method by
which they can be identified and included in the SoS when needed.
Both service systems and SoS will be defined by a high-level physical architecture model, which will be utilized to
define the relevant SoS relationships, interfaces, and constraints that should be included in Concept Definition. The
results will be embedded in the stakeholder and system requirements and handled through interface agreements and
across-project communication during development, realization, and use.
See SEBoK Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering for more information on special considerations for
architecting SoS.
Process Approach
Purpose
The purpose of the Physical Architecture Model Development is to define, select, and synthesize a system physical
architecture model which can support the logical architecture model. A physical architecture model will have
specific properties to address stakeholder concerns or environmental issues and to satisfy system requirements.
Because of the evolution of the context of use or technological possibilities, the physical architecture which is
composed of system elements is supposed to evolve along the life cycle of the system in order for it to continue to
perform its mission within the limits of its required effectiveness. Depending on whether or not evolution impacts
logical architecture model elements, allocations to system elements may change. A physical architecture model is
equipped with specific design properties to continuously challenge the evolution.
Generic inputs include the selected logical architecture model, system requirements, generic patterns and properties
that architects identify and utilize to answer requirements, outcomes from system analysis, and feedback from
system verification and system validation.
Generic outputs are the selected physical architecture model, allocation matrix of functional elements to physical
elements, traceability matrix with system requirements, stakeholder requirements of each system and system element
composing the physical architecture model, and rejected solutions.

Major activities and tasks to be performed during this process include the following:
• Partition and allocate functional elements to system elements:
• Search for system elements or technologies able to perform functions and physical interfaces to carry
input-output and control flows. Ensure system elements exist or can be engineered. Assess each potential
system element using criteria deduced from design properties (themselves deduced from non-functional system
requirements).
• Partition functional elements (functions, scenarios, input-outputs, triggers, etc.) using the given criteria and
allocate partitioned sets to system elements (using the same criteria).
• When it is impossible to identify a system element that corresponds to a partitioned functional set, decompose
the function until the identification of implementable system elements is possible.
• Check the compatibility of technologies and the compatibility of interfaces between selected system elements.
• Constitute candidate physical architecture models.
• Because partitioned sets of functions can be numerous, there are generally too many system elements. For
defining controllable architectures, system elements have to be grouped into higher-level system elements
known as system element groups, often called sub-systems in industry.
• Constitute several different system element groups corresponding to different combinations of elementary
system elements. One set of system element groups plus one or several non-decomposable system elements
forms a candidate physical architecture model of the considered system.
• Represent (using patterns) the physical architecture model of each system element group connecting its system
elements with physical interfaces that carry input-output flows and triggers. Add physical interfaces as needed;
in particular, add interfaces with external elements to the system element group.
• Represent the synthesized physical architecture of the considered system built from system element groups,
non-decomposable systems, and physical interfaces inherited from the physical architecture model of system
element groups.
• Enhance the physical architecture model with design properties such as modularity, evolution capability,
adaptability to different environments, robustness, scalability, resistance to environmental conditions, etc.
• If possible, use executable architecture prototypes (e.g., hardware-software (HW-SW)-in-the-loop prototypes)
for identifying potential deficiencies and correct the architecture as needed.
• Assess physical architecture model candidates and select the most suitable one:
• Use the system analysis process to perform assessments (see the System Analysis topic).
• Use the Decision Management process to support the trades and selection of the preferred alternative (see the
Decision Management topic).
• Synthesize the selected physical architecture model:
• Formalize physical elements and properties. Verify that system requirements are satisfied and that the solution
is realistic.
• Identify the derived physical and functional elements created for the necessity of architecture and design and
the corresponding system requirements.
• Establish traceability between system requirements and physical elements as well as allocate matrices between
functional and physical elements.

Physical architecture descriptions use modeling techniques to create and represent physical architectures. Some
common physical models include structural blocks, mass, layout and other models. Modeling techniques may be:
• Physical block diagrams (PBD)
• SysML block definition diagrams (BDD)
• Internal block diagrams (IBD) (OMG 2010)
• Executable architecture prototyping
• Etc.
Depending on the type of domain for which it is to be used (defense, enterprise, etc.), architecture frameworks may
provide descriptions that can help to trade-off candidate architectures. Please see section 'Enterprise Architecture
Frameworks & Methodologies' in Enterprise Systems Engineering Key Concepts.
Key pitfalls and good practices related to physical architecture development are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in performing physical architecture model development are provided in Table
3.
Table 3. Pitfalls with Physical Architecture Development. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Description
Too Many Levels in The current system block includes too many levels of decomposition. The right practice is that the physical architecture
a Single System model of a system block is composed of one single level of systems and/or system elements.
Block
No Logical The developers perform a direct passage from system requirements to a physical architecture model without establishing a
Architecture Model logical architecture model; this is a common wrong practice that mainly takes place when dealing with repeating systems and
products because the functions are already known. The issue is that a function is always associated with input-output flows
defined in a specific domain set. If the domain set changes, the performance of the function can become invalid.
Direct Allocation At a high level of abstraction of multidisciplinary systems, directly allocating the functions onto technologies of the lowest
on Technologies level of abstraction, such as hardware or software, does not reflect a system comprehension. The right practice is to consider
criteria to decompose the architecture into the appropriate number of levels, alternating logical and physical before reaching
the technology level ( the last level of the system).
===Proven Practices===+
Table 4. Proven Practices with Physical Architecture Development. (SEBoK Original)

Modularity Restrict the number of interactions between the system elements and consider the modularity principle (maximum of consistency
inside the system element, minimum of physical interfaces with outside) as the right way for architecting systems.
Focus on Focusing on interfaces rather than on system elements is another key element of a successful architecture and design for abstract
Interfaces levels of systems.
References
Works Cited
ISO/IEC. 2007. Systems Engineering – Application and Management of The Systems Engineering Process. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standards (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
ISO/IEC 26702:2007.
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) /International Electrotechnical Commissions (IEC)/ Institute of
OMG. 2010. OMG Systems Modeling Language Specification, version 1.2, July 2010. Available at: http:/ / www.
omg.org/technology/documents/spec_catalog.htm.
Primary References
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commissions (IEC)/Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015. ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and
Software Engineering - Architecture Description. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010.
Maier, M., and E. Rechtin. 2009. The Art of Systems Architecting, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Holland, J.H. 2006. "Studying Complex Adaptive Systems." Journal of Systems Science and Complexity. vol. 19, no.
1 pp. 1-8. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/41486.
Thome, B. 1993. Systems Engineering, Principles & Practice of Computer-Based Systems Engineering. New York,
NY, USA: Wiley.
jsp?catalogno=g116.

Detailed Design Definition

Lead Authors: Alan Faisandier, Rick Adcock
The purpose of the System Design is to supplement the system architecture by providing information and data useful
and necessary for implementation of the system elements. Design definition is the process of developing, expressing,
documenting, and communicating the realization of the architecture of the system through a complete set of design
characteristics described in a form suitable for implementation.
Design Notion
In industrial practices, the term design is often used to mean both architecture and design. In the recent past,
professionals used the term design when they dealt with simpler technological products - ones that do not include
several different and interconnected technological components such as hardware, software, operators, services, etc.
In the development of new multi-technology products and services, professionals have recognized the usefulness of
the notion of system in dealing with complexity (interconnections level, multi-techno, emergence, etc.).
It was due to complexity that structuring the elements that comprise a system became necessary. This structure
explains the functional, behavioral, temporal, physical, and other aspects of a system as described in System
Architecture. Practitioners found the term structure inadequate to describe all these aspects of a system. The terms
architecture and architectural design have been used for approximately 30 years, especially in software intensive
systems and other domains, such as the space industry. The set of different types and interrelated structures can be
understood as the architecture of the system.
The trend today is to consider system architecture and system design as different and separate sets of activities, but
concurrent and strongly intertwined.
System design includes activities to conceive a set of system elements that answers a specific, intended purpose,
using principles and concepts; it includes assessments and decisions to select system elements that compose the
system, fit the architecture of the system, and comply with traded-off system requirements. It is the complete set of
detailed models, properties, and/or characteristics described into a form suitable for implementation.
Design Characteristics and Design Enablers

Every technological domain or discipline owns its peculiar laws, rules, theories, and enablers concerning
transformational, structural, behavioral, and temporal properties of its composing parts of materials, energy, or
information. These specific parts and/or their compositions are described with typical design characteristics and
enablers. These allow achieving the implementation of every system element through various transformations and
exchanges required by design characteristics (e.g., operability level, reliability rate, speed, safeguard level) that have
been assigned during the system architecture definition process.
The design definition provides the description of the design characteristics and design enablers necessary for
implementation. Design characteristics include dimensions, shapes, materials, and data processing structures. Design
enablers include formal expressions or equations, drawings, diagrams, tables of metrics with their values and
margins, patterns, algorithms, and heuristics.
• Examples of generic design characteristics in mechanics of solids: shape, geometrical pattern, dimension, volume,
surface, curves, resistance to forces, distribution of forces, weight, velocity of motion, temporal persistence
• Examples of generic design characteristics in software: distribution of processing, data structures, data
persistence, procedural abstraction, data abstraction, control abstraction, encapsulation, creational patterns (e.g.,
builder, factory, prototype, singleton), and structural patterns (e.g., adapter, bridge, composite, decorator, proxy)
Relation with System Architecture

System design is intended to be the link between the system architecture (at whatever point this milestone is defined
in the specific application of the systems engineering process) and the implementation of technological system
elements that compose the physical architecture model of the system.
Design definition is driven by specified requirements, the system architecture, and more detailed analysis of
performance and feasibility. It addresses the implementation technologies and their assimilation. Design provides the
“how-” or “implement-to” level of the definition.
Design concerns every system element composed of implementation technologies, such as mechanics, electronics,
software, chemistry, human operations and services for which specific engineering processes are needed. System
design provides feedback to the parent system architecture to consolidate or confirm the allocation and partitioning
of architectural characteristics and design properties to system elements.
Design Descriptor
A design descriptor is the set of generic design characteristics and of their possible values. If similar, but not exact
system elements exist, it is possible to analyze these in order to identify their basic characteristics. Variations of the
possible values of each characteristic determine potential candidate system elements.
Holistic Design
Holistic design is an approach that considers the system being designed as an interconnected whole, which is also
part of something larger. Holistic concepts can be applied to the system as a whole along with the system in its
context (e.g., the enterprise or mission in which the system participates), as well as the design of mechanical devices,
the layout of spaces, and so forth. This approach often incorporates concerns about the environment, considering
how the design will impact the environment and attempting to reduce environmental impact. Holistic design is about
more than merely trying to meet the system requirements.
Process Approach
Purpose
The purpose of the System Design process is to provide sufficient detailed data and information about the system
and its system elements to enable the implementation consistent with architectural entities as defined in models and
views of the system architecture (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 [ISO 2015]).
Generic inputs include architecture description of the parent system and system element requirements.
Generic outputs are the description of the design characteristics and design enablers necessary for implementation.

Major activities and tasks to be performed during this process include the following:
1. Initialize design definition

• Plan for technology management for the whole system. Identify the technologies (mechanics, electricity,
electronics, software, biology, operators, etc.) that would compose and implement the system elements and their
physical interfaces.
• Determine which technologies and system elements have a risk to become obsolete or evolve during the operation
stage of the system. Plan for their potential replacement.
• Identify types of design characteristics or properties for each technology of each system element.
• Periodically assess design characteristics and adjust as the system evolves.
• Document the design definition strategy, including the need for and requirements of any enabling systems,
products, or services to perform the design.
2. Establish design characteristics and design enablers related to each system element
• Perform, consolidate or detail system requirements allocation to system elements for all requirements and system
elements not fully addressed in the System Architecture process (normally, every system requirement would have
been transformed into architectural entities and architectural characteristics within the System Architecture
process, which are then allocated to system elements through direct assignment or some partitioning).
• Define the design characteristics relating to the architectural characteristics and check that they are
implementable. Use design enablers, such as models (physical and analytical), design heuristics, etc. If the design
characteristics are not feasible, then assess other design alternatives or implementation option, or perform trades
of other system elements definition.
• Define the interfaces that were not defined by the System Architecture process or that need to be refined as the
design details evolve. This includes both internal interfaces between the system elements and the external
interfaces with other systems.
• Record the design characteristics of each system element within the applicable artifacts (they depend on the
design methods and techniques used).
• Provide rationale about selection of major implementation options and enablers.
3. Assess alternatives for obtaining system elements

• Identify existing implemented system elements (COTS/NDI, reused, or other non-developed system elements).
Alternatives for new system elements to be developed may be studied.
• Assess design options for the system element, using selection criteria that are derived from the design
characteristics.
• Select the most appropriate alternatives.
• If the decision is made to develop the system element, the rest of the design definition process and the
implementation process are used. If the decision is to buy or reuse a system element, the acquisition process may
be used to obtain the system element.
4. Manage the design

• Capture and maintain the rationale for all selections among alternatives and decisions for the design, architecture
characteristics, design enablers, and sources of system elements.
• Assess and control the evolution of the design characteristics, including the alignment with the architecture.
• Establish and maintain traceability between design characteristics and architectural characteristics, and with
requirements as necessary.
• Provide baseline information for configuration management.
• Maintain the design baseline and the design definition strategy.
Key pitfalls and proven practices related to system design are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in performing system design are provided in Table 1.
Pitfall Description
Consider the design of This would be conducted using heterogeneous implementation of a given technology or between technologies within
each system element the system-of-interest. The design strategy for the complete system is defined to find synergies and/or commonalities
separately that could help operation and maintenance of system elements.
Proven Practices
Architecture and Discipline engineers perform the design definition of each system element; they provide strong support (knowledge and
design mutual competencies) to systems engineers or architects in the evaluation and selection of candidate system architectures and
support system elements. Inversely, systems engineers, or architects, must provide feedback to discipline engineers to improve
knowledge and know-how.
References
Works Cited
INCOSE. 2015. INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, Version 4. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Primary References
Baldwin, C.Y. and K.B. Clark. 2000. Design Rules. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Wiley & Sons Inc.
DoD. 2010. DOD Architecture Framework. Version 2.02. Arlington, VA, USA: US Department of Defense.
Available at: http://cio-nii.defense.gov/sites/dodaf20/

System Analysis 468
System Analysis
Lead Authors: Alan Faisandier, Ray Madachy, Contributing Author: Rick Adcock
System analysis allows developers to objectively carry out quantitative assessments of systems in order to select
and/or update the most efficient system architecture and to generate derived engineering data. During engineering,
assessments should be performed every time technical choices or decisions are made to determine compliance with
system requirements.
System analysis provides a rigorous approach to technical decision-making. It is used to perform trade-off studies,
and includes modeling and simulation, cost analysis, technical risks analysis, and effectiveness analysis.
Principles Governing System Analysis

One of the major tasks of a systems engineer is to evaluate the engineering data and artifacts created during the
systems engineering (SE) process. The evaluations are at the center of system analysis, providing means and
techniques:
• to define assessment criteria based on system requirements;
• to assess design properties of each candidate solution in comparison to these criteria;
• to score the candidate solutions globally and to justify the scores; and
• to decide on the appropriate solution(s).
The Analysis and Selection between Alternative Solutions article in the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered
Systems knowledge area (KA) of Part 2 describes activities related to selecting between possible system solutions to
an identified problem or opportunity. The following general principles of systems analysis are defined:
• Systems analysis is based on assessment criteria based upon a problem or opportunity system description.
• These criteria will be based around an ideal system description, which assumes a hard system problem context
can be defined.
• Criteria must consider required system behavior and properties of the complete solution, in all possible wider
system contexts and environments.
• These must consider non-functional issues such as system safety, security, etc. (Please see Systems
Engineering and Specialty Engineering for additional discussion on incorporating non-functional elements.)
• This "ideal" system description may be supported by soft system descriptions, from which additional “soft”
criteria may be defined. For example, a stakeholder preference for or against certain kinds of solutions,
relevant social, political or cultural conventions to be considered, etc.
• The assessment criteria should include, at a minimum, the constraints on cost and time scales acceptable to
stakeholders.
• Trade studies provide a mechanism for conducting analysis of alternative solutions.
• A trade study should consider a set of assessment criteria, with appropriate awareness of the limitations and
dependencies between individual criteria.
• Trade studies need to deal with both objective and subjective criteria. Care must be taken to assess the
sensitivity of the overall assessment to particular criteria.
System Analysis 469
Trade-Off Studies
In the context of the definition of a system, a trade-off study consists of comparing the characteristics of each system
element and of each candidate system architecture to determine the solution that best globally balances the
assessment criteria. The various characteristics analyzed are gathered in cost analysis, technical risks analysis, and
effectiveness analysis (NASA 2007).
Guidance on the conduct of trade studies for all types of system context are characterized in the above principles and
described in more detail in the Analysis and Selection between Alternative Solutions topic. Of particular interest to
SE analysis are technical effectiveness, cost, and technical risk analysis.
Effectiveness Analysis
The effectiveness of an engineered system solution includes several essential characteristics that are generally
gathered in the following list of analyses, including (but not limited to): performance, usability, dependability,
manufacturing, maintenance or support, environment, etc. These analyses highlight candidate solutions under
various aspects.
It is essential to establish a classification that limits the number of analyses to the really significant aspects, such as
key performance parameters. The main difficulties of effectiveness analysis are to sort and select the right set of
effectiveness aspects; for example, if the product is made for a single use, maintainability will not be a relevant
criterion.
Cost Analysis
A cost analysis considers the full life cycle costs. A cost baseline can be adapted according to the project and the
system. The global life cycle cost (LCC), or total ownership cost (TOC), may include exemplary labor and non-labor
cost items such as those indicated in Table 1.
Table 1. Types of Costs. (SEBoK Original)

Type of Cost Description and Examples
Development Engineering, development tools (equipment and software), project management, test-benches, mock-ups and prototypes,
training, etc.
Product manufacturing Raw materials and supplies, spare parts and stock assets, necessary resources to operation (water, electricity power, etc.),
or service realization risks and nuances, evacuation, treatment and storage of waste or rejections produced, expenses of structure (taxes,
management, purchase, documentation, quality, cleaning, regulation, controls, etc.), packing and storage, documentation
required.
Sales and after-sales Expenses of structure (subsidiaries, stores, workshops, distribution, information acquisition, etc.), complaints and
guarantees, etc.
Customer utilization Taxes, installation (customer), resources necessary to the operation of the product (water, fuel, lubricants, etc.), financial
risks and nuisances, etc.
Supply chain Transportation and delivery.
Maintenance Field services, preventive maintenance, regulation controls, spare parts and stocks, cost of guarantee, etc.
Disposal Collection, dismantling, transportation, treatment, waste recycling, etc.
Methods for determining cost are described in the Planning topic.

System Analysis 470
Technical Risks Analysis

Every risk analysis concerning every domain is based on three factors:
1. Analysis of potential threats or undesired events and their probability of occurrence.
2. Analysis of the consequences of these threats or undesired events and their classification on a scale of gravity.
3. Mitigation to reduce the probabilities of threats and/or the levels of harmful effect to acceptable values.
The technical risks appear when the system cannot satisfy the system requirements any longer. The causes reside in
the requirements and/or in the solution itself. They are expressed in the form of insufficient effectiveness and can
have multiple causes: incorrect assessment of technological capabilities; over-estimation of the technical maturity of
a system element; failure of parts; breakdowns; breakage, obsolescence of equipment, parts, or software, weakness
from the supplier (non-compliant parts, delay for supply, etc.), human factors (insufficient training, wrong tunings,
error handling, unsuited procedures, malice), etc.
Technical risks are not to be confused with project risks, even if the method to manage them is the same. Although
technical risks may lead to project risks, technical risks address the system itself, not the process for its development.
(See Risk Management for more details.)
Process Approach
Purpose and Principles of the Approach

The system analysis process is used to: (1) provide a rigorous basis for technical decision making, resolution of
requirement conflicts, and assessment of alternative physical solutions (system elements and physical architectures);
(2) determine progress in satisfying system requirements and derived requirements; (3) support risk management;
and (4) ensure that decisions are made only after evaluating the cost, schedule, performance, and risk effects on the
engineering or re-engineering of a system (ANSI/EIA 1998). This process is also called the decision analysis process
by NASA (2007, 1-360) and is used to help evaluate technical issues, alternatives, and their uncertainties to support
decision-making. (See Decision Management for more details.)
System analysis supports other system definition processes:
• Stakeholder requirements definition and system requirements definition processes use system analysis to solve
issues relating to conflicts among the set of requirements; in particular, those related to costs, technical risks, and
effectiveness (performances, operational conditions, and constraints). System requirements subject to high risks,
or those which would require different architectures, are discussed.
• The Logical Architecture Model Development and Physical Architecture Model Development processes use it to
assess characteristics or design properties of candidate logical and physical architectures, providing arguments for
selecting the most efficient one in terms of costs, technical risks, and effectiveness (e.g., performances,
dependability, human factors, etc.).
Like any system definition process, the system analysis process is iterative. Each operation is carried out several
times; each step improves the precision of analysis.

Major activities and tasks performed within this process include:
• Planning the trade-off studies:
• Determine the number of candidate solutions to analyze, the methods and procedures to be used, the expected
results (examples of objects to be selected: behavioral architecture/scenario, physical architecture, system
element, etc.), and the justification items.
• Schedule the analyses according to the availability of models, engineering data (system requirements, design
properties), skilled personnel, and procedures.
System Analysis 471
• Define the selection criteria model:

• Select the assessment criteria from non-functional requirements (performances, operational conditions,
constraints, etc.), and/or from design properties.
• Sort and order the assessment criteria.
• Establish a scale of comparison for each assessment criterion and weigh every assessment criterion according
to its level of relative importance with the others.
• Identify candidate solutions, related models, and data.
• Assess candidate solutions using previously defined methods or procedures:
• Carry out cost analysis, technical risks analysis, and effectiveness analysis placing every candidate solution on
every assessment criterion comparison scale.
• Score every candidate solution as an assessment score.
• Provide results to the calling process: assessment criteria, comparison scales, solutions’ scores, assessment
selection, and possibly recommendations and related arguments.
Artifacts and Ontology Elements

• A selection criteria model (list, scales, weighing)
• Costs, risks, and effectiveness analysis reports
• Justification reports
This process handles the ontology elements of Table 2 within system analysis.
Table 2. Main Ontology Elements as Handled within System Analysis. (SEBoK Original)
Assessment In the context of system analysis, an assessment criterion is a characteristic used to assess or compare system elements, physical
Criterion interfaces, physical architectures, functional architectures/scenarios, or any engineering elements that can be compared.
Identifier; name; description; relative weight; scalar weight
Assessment In the context of system analysis, an assessment selection is a technical management element based on an assessment score that
Selection justifies the selection of a system element, a physical interface, a physical architecture, or a functional architecture/scenario.
Assessment In the context of system analysis, an assessment score is obtained assessing a system element, a physical interface, a physical
Score architecture, a functional architecture/scenario using a set of assessment criteria.
Identifier; name; description; value
Cost In the context of systems engineering, a cost is an amount expressed in a given currency related to the value of a system element,
a physical interface, and a physical architecture.
Identifier; name; description; amount; type (development, production, utilization, maintenance, disposal); confidence interval;
period of reference; estimation technique
Risk An event having a probability of occurrence and consequences related to the system mission or on other characteristics. (Used
for technical risk in engineering.). A risk is the combination of vulnerability and a danger or threat.
Identifier; name description; status

System Analysis 472
Checking Correctness of System Analysis

The main items to be checked within system analysis in order to get validated arguments are:
• Relevance of the models and data in the context of use of the system,
• Relevance of assessment criteria related to the context of use of the system,
• Reproducibility of simulation results and of calculations,
• Precision level of comparisons' scales,
• Confidence of estimates, and
• Sensitivity of solutions' scores related to assessment criteria weights.
See Ring, Eisner, and Maier (2010) for additional perspective.

• General usage of models: Various types of models can be used in the context of system analysis:
• Physical models are scale models allowing simulation of physical phenomena. They are specific to each
discipline; associated tools include mock-ups, vibration tables, test benches, prototypes, decompression
chamber, wind tunnels, etc.
• Representation models are mainly used to simulate the behavior of a system. For example, enhanced
functional flow block diagrams (eFFBDs), statecharts, state machine diagrams (based in systems modeling
language (SysML)), etc.
• Analytical models are mainly used to establish values of estimates. We can consider the deterministic models
and probabilistic models (also known as stochastic models) to be analytical in nature. Analytical models use
equations or diagrams to approach the real operation of the system. They can be very simple (addition) to
incredibly complicated (probabilistic distribution with several variables).
• Use right models depending on the project progress
• At the beginning of the project, first studies use simple tools, allowing rough approximations which have the
advantage of not requiring too much time and effort. These approximations are often sufficient to eliminate
unrealistic or outgoing candidate solutions.
• It is progressively necessary over the development of the project to improve precision of data to compare the
candidate solutions still competing. The work is more complicated if the level of innovation is high.
• A systems engineer alone cannot model a complex system; he or she must be supported by skilled people from
different disciplines involved.
• Specialist expertise: When the values of assessment criteria cannot be given in an objective or precise way, or
because the subjective aspect is dominating, we can ask specialists for expertise. The estimates proceed in four
steps:
1. Select interviewees to collect the opinion of qualified people for the considered field.
2. Draft a questionnaire; a precise questionnaire allows an easy analysis, but a questionnaire that is too closed risks
the neglection of significant points.
3. Interview a limited number of specialists with the questionnaire, including an in-depth discussion to get precise
opinions.
4. Analyze the data with several different people and compare their impressions until an agreement on a
classification of assessment criteria and/or candidate solutions is reached.
Often used analytical models in the context of system analysis are summarized in Table 3.
System Analysis 473
Table 3. Often Used Analytical Models in the Context of System Analysis. (SEBoK
Original)
Type of Model Description
Deterministic models • Models containing statistics are included in this category. The principle consists of establishing a model based on a
significant amount of data and number of results from former projects; they can apply only to system
elements/components whose technology already exists.
• Models by analogy also use former projects. The system element being studied is compared to an already existing
system element with known characteristics (cost, reliability, etc.). Then these characteristics are adjusted based on
the specialists' expertise.
• Learning curves allow foreseeing the evolution of a characteristic or a technology. One example of evolution:
"Each time the number of produced units is multiplied by two, the cost of this unit is reduced with a certain
percentage, generally constant."
Probabilistic models The theory of probability allows classifying the possible candidate solutions compared to consequences from a set of
(also called stochastic events as criteria. These models are applicable if the number of criteria is limited and the combination of the possible
models) events is simple. Take care that the sum of probabilities of all events is equal to one for each node.
Multi-criteria decisions When the number of criteria is greater than ten, it is recommended that a multi-criteria decision model be established.
models This model is obtained through the following actions:
• Organize the criteria as a hierarchy (or a decomposition tree).
• Associate each criterion of each branch of the tree with a relative weight compared to each other of the same level.
• Calculate a scalar weight for each leaf criterion of each branch, multiplying all the weights of the branch.
• Score every candidate solution on the leaf criteria; sum the scores to get a global score for each candidate solution;
compare the scores.
• Using a computerized tool allows to perform sensitivity analysis to get a robust choice.
Key pitfalls and good practices related to system analysis are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing system analysis are provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Pitfalls with System Analysis. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Description
Analytical modeling is not a Analytical modeling gives analytical results from analytical data. It has to be considered as an aid and not as a
decision tool decision tool.
Models and system levels of A model can be well adapted to a level n of a system and be incompatible with the model of the higher level which
decomposition uses the data coming from the lower level. It is essential that the systems engineer ensures the coherence of the
various models used.
Optimization is not a sum of The general optimization of the system-of-interest is not the sum of its optimized systems and/or system elements.
optimized elements
System Analysis 474
Proven Practices
Table 5. Proven Practices with System Analysis. (SEBoK Original)

Stay in the Models can never simulate all the behavior/reactions of a system: they operate only in one limited field with a restricted
operational field number of variables. When a model is used, it is always necessary to make sure that the parameters and data inputs are part of
the operation field. If not, there is a high risk of irregular outputs.
Evolve models Models shall evolve during the project: by modification of parameter settings, by entering new data when modified
(modification of assessment criteria, functions to perform, requirements, etc.), by the use of new tools when those used reach
their limits.
Use several types It is recommended to concurrently use several types of models in order to compare the results and/or to take into account
of models another aspect of the system.
Keep context Results of a simulation shall always be given in their modeling context: tool used, selected assumptions, parameters and data
elements introduced, and variance of the outputs.
consistent
References
Works Cited
Institute (ANSI)/Electronic Industries Association (EIA), ANSI/EIA-632-1998.
Ring, J, H. Eisner, and M. Maier. 2010. "Key Issues of Systems Engineering, Part 3: Proving Your Design."
INCOSE Insight 13(2).
Primary References
Ring, J, H. Eisner, and M. Maier. 2010. "Key Issues of Systems Engineering, Part 3: Proving Your Design."
INCOSE Insight. vol. 13, no. 2.

System Realization
Lead Authors: John Snoderly, Alan Faisandier, Contributing Author: Rick Adcock
System realization activities are conducted to create and test versions of a system as specified by system definition.
The activities are grouped and described as generic processes that are performed iteratively and/or concurrently
depending on the selected life cycle model. These activities include those required to build a system (system
implementation), integrate disparate system elements (system integration), and ensure that the system meets both the
needs of stakeholders (system validation) and aligns with the system requirements and architecture (system
verification).
These activities are not sequential, but are performed concurrently, iteratively and recursively depending on the
selected life cycle model. Figure 1 (see "Overview", below), also shows how these processes fit within the context of
system definition and System Deployment and Use KAs. See also Applying Life Cycle Processes for further
discussion of the relationships between process and life cycle model.
Topics
Each part of the SEBoK is divided into KAs, which are groupings of information with a related theme. The KAs in
turn are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
Overview
Essentially, the outputs of system definition are used during system implementation to create system elements and
during system integration to provide plans and criteria for combining these elements. The requirements are used to
verify and validate system elements, systems, and the overall system-of-interest (SoI). These activities provide
feedback into the system design, particularly when problems or challenges are identified.
Finally, when the system is considered, verified, and validated, it will then become an input to system deployment
and use. It is important to understand that there is overlap in these activities; they do not have to occur in sequence as
demonstrated in Figure 1. Every life cycle model includes realization activities, principally, verification and
validation activities. The way these activities are performed is dependent upon the life cycle model in use. (For
additional information on life cycles, see the Life Cycle Models KA.)
Figure 1. System Realization. (SEBoK Original)
The realization processes are performed to ensure that the system will be ready for transition and has the appropriate
structure and behavior to enable the desired operation and functionality throughout the system’s life span. Both DAU
and NASA include transition in realization, in addition to implementation, integration, verification, and validation
(Prosnik 2010; NASA December 2007, 1-360).
Fundamentals
Macro View of Realization Processes

Figure 2 illustrates a macro view of generic outputs from realization activities when using a Vee life cycle model.
The left side of the Vee represents various design activities 'going down' the system.
Figure 2. The Vee Activity Diagram (Prosnik 2010). Released by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
The left side of the Vee model demonstrates the development of system elements specifications and design
descriptions. In this stage, verification and validation plans are developed, which are later used to determine whether
realized system elements (products, services, or enterprises) are compliant with specifications and stakeholder
requirements. Also, during this stage initial specifications become flow-down requirements for lower-level system
models. In terms of time frame, these activities take place early in the system’s life cycle. These activities are
discussed further in the System Definition KA. However, it is important to understand that some of the system
realization activities are initiated at the same time as system definition activities; this is the case with integration,
verification and validation planning in particular.
The right side of the Vee model, as illustrated in Figure 2, shows the system elements (products, services, or
enterprises) are assembled according to the system model described on the left side of the Vee (integration).
Verification and validation activities determine how well the realized system fulfills the stakeholder requirements,
the system requirements, and design properties. These activities should follow the plans developed on the left side of
the Vee. Integration can be done continuously, incrementally and/or iteratively, supported by verification and
validation (V&V) efforts. For example, integration typically starts at the bottom of the Vee and continues upwards to
the top of the Vee.
The U.S. Defense Acquisition University (DAU) provides an overview of what occurs during system realization:
Once the products of all system models have been fully defined, Bottom-Up End Product Realization can
be initiated. This begins by applying the Implementation Process to buy, build, code or reuse end
products. These implemented end products are verified against their design descriptions and
specifications, validated against Stakeholder Requirements and then transitioned to the next higher
system model for integration. End products from the Integration Process are successively integrated
upward, verified and validated, transitioned to the next acquisition phase or transitioned ultimately as
the End Product to the user. (Prosnik 2010)
While the systems engineering (SE) technical processes are life cycle processes, the processes are concurrent, and
the emphasis of the respective processes depends on the phase and maturity of the design. Figure 3 portrays (from
left to right) a notional emphasis of the respective processes throughout the systems acquisition life cycle from the
perspective of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). It is important to note that from this perspective, these
processes do not follow a linear progression; instead, they are concurrent, with the amount of activity in a given area
changing over the system’s life cycle. The red boxes indicate the topics that will be discussed as part of realization.
Figure 3. Notional Emphasis of Systems Engineering Technical Processes and Program Life-Cycle Phases (DAU 2010). Released by
the Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
References
Works Cited
Prosnik, G. 2010. Materials from "Systems 101: Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Planning, Research,
Development, and Engineering". DAU distance learning program. eds. J. Snoderly, B. Zimmerman. Ft. Belvoir, VA,
USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
Primary References
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.1.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015.Systems and Software Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes.Geneva, Switzerland:
Martin, J.N. 1997. Systems Engineering Guidebook: A process for developing systems and products, 1st ed. Boca
(NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105.
DAU. Your Acquisition Policy and Discretionary Best Practices Guide. In Defense Acquisition University
(DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) [database online]. Ft Belvoir, VA, USA. Available at: https:/ / dag. dau.
mil/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed 2010).
ECSS. 2009. Systems Engineering General Requirements. Noordwijk, Netherlands: Requirements and Standards
Division, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS), 6 March 2009. ECSS-E-ST-10C.
IEEE. 2012. "Standard for System and Software Verification and Validation". Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers. IEEE-1012.

System Implementation
Lead Authors: John Snoderly, Alan Faisandier
System Implementation uses the structure created during architectural design and the results of system analysis to
construct system elements that meet the stakeholder requirements and system requirements developed in the early
life cycle phases. These system elements are then integrated to form intermediate aggregates and finally the complete
system-of-interest (SoI). See System Integration.
Definition and Purpose

Implementation is the process that actually yields the lowest-level system elements in the system hierarchy (system
breakdown structure). System elements are made, bought, or reused. Production involves the hardware fabrication
processes of forming, removing, joining, and finishing, the software realization processes of coding and testing, or
the operational procedures development processes for operators' roles. If implementation involves a production
process, a manufacturing system which uses the established technical and management processes may be required.
The purpose of the implementation process is to design and create (or fabricate) a system element conforming to that
element’s design properties and/or requirements. The element is constructed employing appropriate technologies and
industry practices. This process bridges the system definition processes and the integration process. Figure 1 portrays
how the outputs of system definition relate to system implementation, which produces the implemented (system)
elements required to produce aggregates and the SoI.
Figure 1. Simplification of How the Outputs of System Definition Relate to System Implementation, which Produces the System Elements
Required to Produce Systems and Subsystems. (SEBoK Original)
Process Approach

During the implementation process, engineers apply the design properties and/or requirements allocated to a system
element to design and produce a detailed description. They then fabricate, code, or build each individual element
using specified materials, processes, physical or logical arrangements, standards, technologies, and/or information
flows outlined in detailed descriptions (drawings or other design documentation). A system element will be verified
against the detailed description of properties and validated against its requirements.
If subsequent verification and validation (V&V) actions or configuration audits reveal discrepancies, recursive
interactions occur, which includes predecessor activities or processes, as required, to mitigate those discrepancies
and to modify, repair, or correct the system element in question. Figure 2 provides the context for the
implementation process from the perspective of the U.S. Defense Acquisition University (DAU).
Figure 2. Context Diagram for the Implementation Process (DAU 2010). Released by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Such figures provide a useful overview of the systems engineering (SE) community’s perspectives on what is
required for implementation and what the general results of implementation may be. These are further supported by
the discussion of implementation inputs, outputs, and activities found in the National Aeronautics and Space
Association's (NASA's) Systems Engineering Handbook (NASA 2007). It is important to understand that these views
are process -oriented. While this is a useful model, examining implementation only in terms of process can be
limiting.
Depending on the technologies and systems chosen when a decision is made to produce a system element, the
implementation process outcomes may generate constraints to be applied on the architecture of the higher-level
system; those constraints are normally identified as derived system requirements and added to the set of system
requirements applicable to this higher-level system. The architectural design has tomust take those constraints into
account.
If the decision is made to purchase or reuse an existing system element, it has tomust be identified as a constraint or
system requirement applicable to the architecture of the higher-level system. Conversely, the implementation process
may involve some adaptation or adjustments to the system requirement in order to be integrated into a higher-level
system or aggregate.
Implementation also involves packaging, handling, and storage, depending on the concerned technologies and where
or when the system requirement needs to be integrated into a higher-level aggregate. Developing the supporting
documentation for a system requirement, such as the manuals for operation, maintenance, and/or installation, is also
a part of the implementation process; these artifacts are utilized in the system deployment and use phase. The system
element requirements and the associated verification and validation criteria are inputs to this process; these inputs
come from the architectural design process detailed outputs.
Execution of the implementation process is governed by both industrial and government standards and the terms of
all applicable agreements. This may include conditions for packaging and storage, as well as preparation for use
activities, such as operator training. In addition, packaging, handling, storage, and transportation (PHS&T)
considerations will constrain the implementation activities. For more information, refer to the discussion of PHS&T
in the System Deployment and Use article. The developing or integrating organization will likely have
enterprise-level safety practices and guidelines that must also be considered.

The following major activities and tasks are performed during this process:
• Define the implementation strategy - Implementation process activities begin with detailed design and include
developing an implementation strategy that defines fabrication and coding procedures, tools and equipment to be
used, implementation tolerances, and the means and criteria for auditing configuration of resulting elements to the
detailed design documentation. In the case of repeated system element implementations (such as for mass
manufacturing or replacement elements), the implementation strategy is defined and refined to achieve consistent
and repeatable element production; it is retained in the project decision database for future use. The
implementation strategy contains the arrangements for packing, storing, and supplying the implemented element.
• Realize the system element - Realize or adapt and produce the concerned system element using the
implementation strategy items as defined above. Realization or adaptation is conducted with regard to standards
that govern applicable safety, security, privacy, and environmental guidelines or legislation and the practices of
the relevant implementation technology. This requires the fabrication of hardware elements, development of
software elements, definition of training capabilities, drafting of training documentation, and the training of initial
operators and maintainers.
• Provide evidence of compliance - Record evidence that the system element meets its requirements and the
associated verification and validation criteria as well as the legislation policy. This requires the conduction of peer
reviews and unit testing, as well as inspection of operation and maintenance manuals. Acquire measured
properties that characterize the implemented element (weight, capacities, effectiveness, level of performance,
reliability, availability, etc.).
• Package, store, and supply the implemented element - This should be defined in the implementation strategy.

This process may create several artifacts such as:
• an implemented system
• implementation tools
• implementation procedures
• an implementation plan or strategy
• verification reports
• issue, anomaly, or trouble reports
• change requests (about design)
This process handles the ontology elements shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Main Ontology Elements as Handled within System Element Implementation.

(SEBoK Original)
Element Definition
Attributes (examples)
Implemented An implemented element is a system element that has been implemented. In the case of hardware it is marked with a part/serial
Element number.
Identifier, name, description, type (hardware, software application, software piece, mechanical part, electric art, electronic
component, operator role, procedure, protocol, manual, etc.)
Measured A measured property is a characteristic of the implemented element established after its implementation. The measured properties
Property characterize the implemented system element when it is completely realized, verified, and validated. If the implemented element
complies with a design property, the measured property should equal the design property. Otherwise one has tomust identify the
difference or non-conformance which treatment could conclude to modify the design property and possibly the related
requirements, or to modify (correct, repair) the implemented element, or to identify a deviation.
Identifier, name, description, type (effectiveness, availability, reliability, maintainability, weight, capacity, etc.), value, unit, etc.
The main relationships between ontology elements are presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Implementation Elements Relationships with Other Engineering

Elements. (SEBoK Original)
Methods, Techniques, and Tools

There are many software tools available in the implementation and integration phases. The most basic method would
be the use of N-squared diagrams as discussed in Jeff Grady’s book System Integration (Grady 1994).
Checking and Correctness of Implementation

Proper implementation checking and correctness should include testing to determine if the implemented element
(i.e., piece of software, hardware, or other product) works in its intended use. Testing could include mockups and
breadboards, as well as modeling and simulation of a prototype or completed pieces of a system. Once this is
completed successfully, the next process would be system integration.
References
Works Cited
DAU. February 19, 2010. Defense acquisition guidebook (DAG). Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition
University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense.
Grady, J.O. 1994. System integration. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Inc.
(NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105.
Primary References
Grady, J.O. 1994. System Integration. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Inc.
(NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105.

System Integration
Lead Authors: John Snoderly, Alan Faisandier, Scott Jackson
System integration consists of taking delivery of the implemented system elements which compose the
system-of-interest (SoI), assembling these implemented elements together, and performing the verification and
validation actions (V&V actions) in the course of the assembly. The ultimate goal of system integration is to ensure
that the individual system elements function properly as a whole and satisfy the design properties or characteristics
of the system. System integration is one part of the realization effort and relates only to developmental items.
Integration should not to be confused with the assembly of end products on a production line. To perform the
production, the assembly line uses a different order from that used by integration.

System integration consists of a process that “iteratively combines implemented system elements to form complete or
partial system configurations in order to build a product or service. It is used recursively for successive levels of the
system hierarchy.” (ISO/IEC 15288 2015, 68). The process is extended to any kind of product system, service
system, and enterprise system. The purpose of system integration is to prepare the SoI for final validation and
transition either for use or for production. Integration consists of progressively assembling aggregates of
implemented elements that compose the SoI as architected during design, and to check correctness of static and
dynamic aspects of interfaces between the implemented elements.
The U.S. Defense Acquisition University (DAU) provides the following context for integration: The integration
process will be used . . . for the incorporation of the final system into its operational environment to ensure that the
system is integrated properly into all defined external interfaces. The interface management process is particularly
important for the success of the integration process, and iteration between the two processes will occur (DAU 2010).
The purpose of system integration can be summarized as below:
• Completely assemble the implemented elements to make sure that the they are compatible with each other.
• Demonstrate that the aggregates of implemented elements perform the expected functions and meet measures of
performance/effectiveness.
• Detect defects/faults related to design and assembly activities by submitting the aggregates to focused V&V
actions.
Note: In the systems engineering literature, sometimes the term integration is used in a larger context than in the
present topic. In this larger sense, it concerns the technical effort to simultaneously design and develop the system
and the processes for developing the system through concurrent consideration of all life cycle stages, needs, and
competences. This approach requires the "integration" of numerous skills, activities, or processes.
Principles
Boundary of Integration Activity

Integration can be understood as the whole bottom-up branch of the Vee Model, including the tasks of assembly and
the appropriate verification tasks. See Figure 1 below:
Figure 1. Limits of Integration Activities. (SEBoK Original)
The assembly activity joins together, and physically links, the implemented elements. Each implemented element is
individually verified and validated prior to entering integration. Integration then adds the verification activity to the
assembly activity, excluding the final validation.
The final validation performs operational tests that authorize the transition for use or the transition for production.
Remember that system integration only endeavors to obtain pre-production prototypes of the concerned product,
service, or enterprise. If the product, service, or enterprise is delivered as a unique exemplar, the final validation
activity serves as acceptance for delivery and transfer for use. If the prototype has to be produced in several
exemplars, the final validation serves as acceptance to launch their production. The definition of the optimized
operations of assembly which will be carried out on a production line relates to the manufacturing process and not to
the integration process.
Integration activity can sometimes reveal issues or anomalies that require modifications of the design of the system.
Modifying the design is not part of the integration process but concerns only the design process. Integration only
deals with the assembly of the implemented elements and verification of the system against its properties as
designed. During assembly, it is possible to carry out tasks of finishing touches which require simultaneous use of
several implemented elements (e.g., paint the whole after assembly, calibrate a biochemical component, etc.). These
tasks must be planned in the context of integration and are not carried out on separate implemented elements and do
not include modifications related to design.
Aggregation of Implemented Elements

The integration is used to systematically assemble a higher-level system from lower-level ones (implemented system
elements) that have been implemented. Integration often begins with analysis and simulations (e.g., various types of
prototypes) and progresses through increasingly more realistic systems and system elements until the final product,
service, or enterprise is achieved.
System integration is based on the notion of an aggregate - a subset of the system made up of several implemented
elements (implemented system elements and physical interfaces) on which a set of V&V actions is applied. Each
aggregate is characterized by a configuration which specifies the implemented elements to be physically assembled
and their configuration status.
To perform V&V actions, a V&V configuration that includes the aggregate plus V&V tools is constituted. The V&V
tools are enabling products and can be simulators (simulated implemented elements), stubs or caps, activators
(launchers, drivers), harness, measuring devices, etc.
Integration by Level of System

According to the Vee Model, system definition (top-down branch) is done by successive levels of decomposition;
each level corresponds to the physical architecture of systems and system elements. The integration (bottom-up
branch) takes the opposite approach of composition (i.e., a level by level approach). On a given level, integration is
done on the basis of the physical architecture defined during system definition.
Integration Strategy
The integration of implemented elements is generally performed according to a predefined strategy. The definition of
the integration strategy is based on the architecture of the system and relies on the way the architecture of the system
has been designed. The strategy is described in an integration plan that defines the minimum configuration of
expected aggregates, the order of assembly of these aggregates in order to support efficient subsequent verification
and validation actions (e.g., inspections and/or testing), techniques to check or evaluate interfaces, and necessary
capabilities in the integration environment to support combinations of aggregates. The integration strategy is thus
elaborated starting from the selected verification and validation strategy. See the System Verification and System
Validation topics.
To define an integration strategy, there are several possible integration approaches/techniques that may be used
individually or in combination. The selection of integration techniques depends on several factors; in particular, the
type of system element, delivery time, order of delivery, risks, constraints, etc. Each integration technique has
strengths and weaknesses which should be considered in the context of the SoI. Some integration techniques are
summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Integration Techniques. (SEBoK Original)

Integration Description
Technique
Global Integration Also known as big-bang integration; all the delivered implemented elements are assembled in only one step.
• This technique is simple and does not require simulating the implemented elements not being available at that time.
• Difficult to detect and localize faults; interface faults are detected late.
• Should be reserved for simple systems, with few interactions and few implemented elements without technological
risks.
Integration "with The delivered implemented elements are assembled as they become available.
the Stream" • Allows starting the integration quickly.
• Complex to implement because of the necessity to simulate the implemented elements not yet available. Impossible to
control the end-to-end "functional chains"; consequently, global tests are postponed very late in the schedule.
• Should be reserved for well-known and controlled systems without technological risks.
Incremental In a predefined order, either one or a very few implemented elements are added to an already integrated increment of
Integration implemented elements.
• Fast localization of faults: a new fault is usually localized in lately integrated implemented elements or dependent of a
faulty interface.
• Require simulators for absent implemented elements. Require many test cases, as each implemented element addition
requires the verification of the new configuration and regression testing.
• Applicable to any type of architecture.
Subsets Integration Implemented elements are assembled by subsets, and then subsets are assembled together (a subset is an aggregate); could
also be called "functional chains integration".
• Time saving due to parallel integration of subsets; delivery of partial products is possible. Requires less means and
fewer test cases than integration by increments.
• Subsets shall be defined during the design.
• Applicable to architectures composed of sub-systems.
Top-Down Implemented elements or aggregates are integrated in their activation or utilization order.
Integration • Availability of a skeleton and early detection of architectural faults, definition of test cases close to reality, and the
re-use of test data sets possible.
• Many stubs/caps need to be created; difficult to define test cases of the leaf-implemented elements (lowest level).
• Mainly used in software domain. Start from the implemented element of higher level; implemented elements of lower
level are added until leaf-implemented elements.
Bottom-Up Implemented elements or aggregates are integrated in the opposite order of their activation or utilization.
Integration • Easy definition of test cases; early detection of faults (usually localized in the leaf-implemented elements); reduce the
number of simulators to be used. An aggregate can be a sub-system.
• Test cases shall be redefined for each step, drivers are difficult to define and realize, implemented elements of lower
levels are "over-tested", and does not allow architectural faults to be quickly detected.
• Mainly used in software domain, but can be used in any kind of system.
Criterion Driven The most critical implemented elements compared to the selected criterion are first integrated (dependability, complexity,
Integration technological innovation, etc.). Criteria are generally related to risks.
• Allows early and intensive testing of critical implemented elements; early verification of design choices.
• Test cases and test data sets are difficult to define.
Usually, a mixed integration technique is selected as a trade-off between the different techniques listed above,
allowing optimization of work and adaptation of the process to the system under development. The optimization
takes into account the realization time of the implemented elements, their delivery scheduled order, their level of
complexity, the technical risks, the availability of assembly tools, cost, deadlines, specific personnel capability, etc.
Process Approach

Major activities and tasks performed during this process include:
• Establishing the integration plan (this activity is carried out concurrently to the design activity of the system)
that defines:
•The optimized integration strategy – order of aggregates assembly using appropriate integration techniques.
•The V&V actions to be processed for the purpose of integration.
•The configurations of the aggregates to be assembled and verified.
•The integration means and verification means (dedicated enabling products) that may include assembly
procedures, assembly tools (harness, specific tools), V&V tools (simulators, stubs/caps, launchers, test
benches, devices for measuring, etc.), and V&V procedures.
• Obtain the integration means and verification means as defined in the integration plan. The acquisition of the
means can be accomplished through various ways such as procurement, development, reuse, and sub-contracting;
usually the acquisition of the complete set of means is a mix of these methods.
• Take delivery of each implemented element:
• Unpack and reassemble the implemented element with its accessories.
• Check the delivered configuration, conformance of implemented elements and compatibility of interfaces, and
ensure the presence of mandatory documentation.
• Assemble the implemented elements into aggregates:
• Gather the implemented elements to be assembled, the integration means (assembly tools, assembly
procedures), and the verification means (V&V tools and procedures).
• Connect the implemented elements to each other using assembly tools to constitute aggregates in the order
prescribed by the integration plan and in assembly procedures.
• Add or connect the V&V tools to the aggregates as predefined.
• Carry out eventual operations of welding, gluing, drilling, tapping, adjusting, tuning, painting, parametering,
etc.
• Verify each aggregate:
• Check the aggregate is correctly assembled according to established procedures.
• Perform the verification process that uses verification and validation procedures and check that the aggregate
shows the right design properties/specified requirements.
• Record integration results/reports and potential issue reports, change requests, etc.

• an integrated system
• assembly tools
• assembly procedures
• integration plans
• integration reports
• issue/anomaly/trouble reports
• change requests (about design)
This process utilizes the ontology elements discussed in Table 2.
Table 2. Main Ontology Elements as Handled within System Integration. (SEBoK Original)
Element Definition
Attributes
Aggregate An aggregate is a subset of the system made up of several system elements or systems on which a set of verification actions is
applied.
Identifier, name, description
Assembly An assembly procedure groups a set of elementary assembly actions to build an aggregate of implemented system elements.
Procedure
Identifier, name, description, duration, unit of time
Assembly Tool An assembly tool is a physical tool used to connect, assemble, or link several implemented system elements to build aggregates
(specific tool, harness, etc.).
Risk An event having a probability of occurrence and a gravity degree on its consequence onto the system mission or on other
characteristics (used for technical risk in engineering). A risk is the combination of vulnerability and of a danger or a threat.
Identifier, name, description, status
Rationale An argument that provides the justification for the selection of an engineering element.
Identifier, name, description (rationale, reasons for defining an aggregate, assembly procedure, assembly tool)
Note: verification and validation ontology elements are described in the System Verification and System Validation
topics.
The main relationships between ontology elements are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Integration Elements Relationships with Other Engineering Elements. (SEBoK Original)
Checking and Correctness of Integration

The main items to be checked during the integration process include the following:
• The integration plan respects its template.
• The expected assembly order (integration strategy) is realistic.
• No system element and physical interface set out in the system design document is forgotten.
• Every interface and interaction between implemented elements is verified.
• Assembly procedures and assembly tools are available and validated prior to beginning the assembly.
• V&V procedures and tools are available and validated prior to beginning the verification.
• Integration reports are recorded.
Methods and Techniques

Several different approaches are summarized above in the section Integration Strategy [1] (above) that may be used
for integration, yet other approaches exist. In particular, important integration strategies for intensive software
systems include: vertical integration, horizontal integration, and star integration.
Coupling Matrix and N-squared Diagram

One of the most basic methods to define the aggregates and the order of integration would be the use of N-Squared
diagrams (Grady 1994, 190).
In the integration context, the coupling matrices are useful for optimizing the aggregate definition and verification of
interfaces:
• The integration strategy is defined and optimized by reorganizing the coupling matrix in order to group the
implemented elements in aggregates, thus minimizing the number of interfaces to be verified between aggregates
(see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Initial Arrangement of Aggregates on the Left; Final Arrangement After Reorganization on the Right. (SEBoK Original)
• When verifying the interactions between aggregates, the matrix is an aid tool for fault detection. If by adding an
implemented element to an aggregate an error is detected, the fault can be related to the implemented element, to
the aggregate, or to the interfaces. If the fault is related to the aggregate, it can relate to any implemented element
or any interface between the implemented elements internal to the aggregate.
Application to Product Systems, Service Systems, and Enterprise Systems

As the nature of implemented system elements and physical interfaces is different for these types of systems, the
aggregates, the assembly tools, and the V&V tools are different. Some integration techniques are more appropriate to
specific types of systems. Table 3 below provides some examples.
Table 3. Different Integration Elements for Product, Service, and Enterprise Systems.
(SEBoK Original)
Element Product System Service System Enterprise System
System Element Hardware Parts (mechanics, Processes, data bases, procedures, etc. Corporate, direction, division,
electronics, electrical, plastic, Operator Roles department, project, technical team,
chemical, etc.) leader, etc.
Software Applications
Operator Roles IT components
Software Pieces
Physical Interface Hardware parts, protocols, Protocols, documents, etc. Protocols, procedures, documents, etc.
procedures, etc.
Assembly Tools Harness, mechanical tools, specific Documentation, learning course, etc. Documentation, learning, moving of
tools office
Software Linker
Verification Tools Test bench, simulator, launchers, Activity/scenario models, simulator, Activity/scenario models, simulator,
stub/cap human roles rehearsal, computer, etc. human roles rehearsal
Skilled Experts
Validation Tools Operational environment Operational environment Operational environment

Recommended Top down integration technique Subsets integration technique Global integration technique
Integration Techniques Bottom Up Integration technique (functional chains) Incremental integration
Key pitfalls and good practices related to system integration are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing SE Measurement are provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Major Pitfalls with System Integration. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Description
Delay of expected The experience shows that the implemented elements always do not arrive in the expected order and the tests never proceed
element or result as foreseen; therefore, the integration strategy should allow a great flexibility.
Big-bang not The "big-bang" integration technique is not appropriate for a fast detection of faults. It is thus preferable to verify the
appropriate interfaces progressively all along the integration.
Integration plan The preparation of the integration activities is planned too late in the project schedule, typically when first implemented
too late elements are delivered.
Good Practices
Table 5. Proven Practices with System Integration. (SEBoK Original)

Start earlier The development of assembly tools and verification and validation tools can be take as long as the system development
development of itself. It should be started as early as possible as soon as the preliminary design is nearly frozen.
means
Integration means The development of integration means (assembly tools, verification, and validation tools) can be seen as enabling systems,
seen as enabling using system definition and system realization processes as described in this SEBoK, and managed as projects. These
systems projects can be led by the project of the corresponding system-of-interest, but assigned to specific system blocks, or can be
subcontracted as separate projects.
Use coupling matrix A good practice consists in gradually integrating aggregates in order to detect faults more easily. The use of the coupling
matrix applies for all strategies and especially for the bottom up integration strategy.
Flexible integration The integration process of complex systems cannot be easily foreseeable and its progress control difficult to observe. This
plan and schedule is why it is recommended to plan integration with specific margins, using flexible techniques, and integrating sets by
similar technologies.
Integration and The integration responsible should be part of the design team.
design teams
References
Works Cited
DAU. February 19, 2010. Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG). Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition
University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
Primary References
INCOSE. 2010. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for Systems Life Cycle Processes and Activities. Version
3.2. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.
(NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105.
Wiley & Sons Inc.
(DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense. February 19, 2010.
Gold-Bernstein, B. and W.A. Ruh. 2004. Enterprise integration: The essential guide to integration solutions.
Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley Professional.
Grady, J.O. 1994. System integration. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Inc.
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the General Principles Applicable to Systems?" INCOSE Insight 12(4):59-63.
Jackson, S. 2010. Architecting Resilient Systems: Accident Avoidance and Survival and Recovery from Disruptions.
Reason, J. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

References
[1] http:/ / sebokwiki. org/ 1. 0. 1/ index. php?title=System_Integration#Integration_Strategy
System Verification
Lead Authors: John Snoderly, Alan Faisandier
System Verification is a set of actions used to check the correctness of any element, such as a system element, a
system, a document, a service, a task, a requirement, etc. These types of actions are planned and carried out
throughout the life cycle of the system. Verification is a generic term that needs to be instantiated within the context
it occurs. As a process, verification is a transverse activity to every life cycle stage of the system. In particular,
during the development cycle of the system, the verification process is performed in parallel with the system
definition and system realization processes and applies to any activity and any product resulting from the activity.
The activities of every life cycle process and those of the verification process can work together. For example, the
integration process frequently uses the verification process. It is important to remember that verification, while
separate from validation, is intended to be performed in conjunction with validation.

Verification is the confirmation, through the provision of objective evidence, that specified requirements have been
fulfilled. With a note added in ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, the scope of verification includes a set of activities that
compares a system or system element against the requirements, architecture and design characteristics, and other
properties to be verified (ISO/IEC/IEEE 2015). This may include, but is not limited to, specified requirements,
design description, and the system itself.
The purpose of verification, as a generic action, is to identify the faults/defects introduced at the time of any
transformation of inputs into outputs. Verification is used to provide information and evidence that the
transformation was made according to the selected and appropriate methods, techniques, standards, or rules.
Verification is based on tangible evidence; i.e., it is based on information whose veracity can be demonstrated by
factual results obtained from techniques such as inspection, measurement, testing, analysis, calculation, etc. Thus,
the process of verifying a system (product, service, enterprise, or system of systems (SoS)) consists of comparing the
realized characteristics or properties of the product, service, or enterprise against its expected design properties.
Concept of Verification Action
Why Verify?
In the context of human realization, any human thought is susceptible to error. This is also the case with any
engineering activity. Studies in human reliability have shown that people trained to perform a specific operation
make around 1-3 errors per hour in best case scenarios. In any activity, or resulting outcome of an activity, the search
for potential errors should not be neglected, regardless of whether or not one thinks they will happen or that they
should not happen; the consequences of errors can cause extremely significant failures or threats.
A verification action is defined, and then performed, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Definition and Usage of a Verification Action. (SEBoK Original)
The definition of a verification action applied to an engineering element includes the following:
• Identification of the element on which the verification action will be performed
• Identification of the reference to define the expected result of the verification action (see examples of reference in
Table 1)
The performance of a verification action includes the following:
• Obtaining a result by performing the verification action onto the submitted element
• Comparing the obtained result with the expected result
• Deducing the degree of correctness of the element
What to Verify?
Any engineering element can be verified using a specific reference for comparison: stakeholder requirement, system
requirement, function, system element, document, etc. Examples are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Examples of Verified Items. (SEBoK Original)

Items Explanation for Verification
Document To verify a document is to check the application of drafting rules.
Stakeholder To verify a stakeholder requirement or a system requirement is to check the application of syntactic and grammatical
Requirement and rules, characteristics defined in the stakeholder requirements definition process, and the system requirements definition
System Requirement process such as necessity, implementation free, unambiguous, consistent, complete, singular, feasible, traceable, and
verifiable.
Design To verify the design of a system is to check its logical and physical architecture elements against the characteristics of
the outcomes of the design processes.
System To verify a system (product, service, or enterprise) is to check its realized characteristics or properties against its
expected design characteristics.
Aggregate To verify an aggregate for integration is to check every interface and interaction between implemented elements.
Verification Procedure To verify a verification procedure is to check the application of a predefined template and drafting rules.
Verification versus Validation

The term verification is often associated with the term validation and understood as a single concept of V&V.
Validation is used to ensure that one is working the right problem, whereas verification is used to ensure that one has
solved the problem right (Martin 1997). From an actual and etymological meaning, the term verification comes from
the Latin verus, which means truth, and facere, which means to make/perform. Thus, verification means to prove
that something is true or correct (a property, a characteristic, etc.). The term validation comes from the Latin valere,
which means to become strong, and has the same etymological root as the word value. Thus, validation means to
prove that something has the right features to produce the expected effects. (Adapted from "Verification and
Validation in plain English" (Lake INCOSE 1999).)
The main differences between the verification process and the validation process concern the references used to
check the correctness of an element, and the acceptability of the effective correctness.
• Within verification, comparison between the expected result and the obtained result is generally binary, whereas
within validation, the result of the comparison may require a judgment of value regarding whether or not to accept
the obtained result compared to a threshold or limit.
• Verification relates more to one element, whereas validation relates more to a set of elements and considers this
set as a whole.
• Validation presupposes that verification actions have already been performed.
• The techniques used to define and perform the verification actions and those for validation actions are very
similar.
Integration, Verification, and Validation of the System

There is sometimes a misconception that verification occurs after integration and before validation. In most cases, it
is more appropriate to begin verification activities during development or implementation and to continue them into
deployment and use.
Once the system elements have been realized, they are integrated to form the complete system. Integration consists
of assembling and performing verification actions as stated in the integration process. A final validation activity
generally occurs when the system is integrated, but a certain number of validation actions are also performed parallel
to the system integration in order to reduce the number of verification actions and validation actions while
controlling the risks that could be generated if some checks are excluded. Integration, verification, and validation are
intimately processed together due to the necessity of optimizing the strategy of verification and validation, as well as
the strategy of integration.
Process Approach

The purpose of the verification process is to confirm that the system fulfills the specified design requirements. This
process provides the information required to effect the remedial actions that correct non-conformances in the realized
system or the processes that act on it - see ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (ISO/IEC/IEEE 2015).
Each system element and the complete system itself should be compared against its own design references (specified
requirements). As stated by Dennis Buede, verification is the matching of [configuration items], components,
sub-systems, and the system to corresponding requirements to ensure that each has been built right (Buede 2009).
This means that the verification process is instantiated as many times as necessary during the global development of
the system. Because of the generic nature of a process, the verification process can be applied to any engineering
element that has conducted to the definition and realization of the system elements and the system itself.
Facing the huge number of potential verification actions that may be generated by the normal approach, it is
necessary to optimize the verification strategy. This strategy is based on the balance between what must be verified
and constraints, such as time, cost, and feasibility of testing, which naturally limit the number of verification actions
and the risks one accepts when excluding some verification actions.
Several approaches exist that may be used for defining the verification process. The International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) dictates that two main steps are necessary for verification: planning and performing
verification actions (INCOSE 2012). NASA has a slightly more detailed approach that includes five main steps:
prepare verification, perform verification, analyze outcomes, produce a report, and capture work products (NASA
December 2007, 1-360, p. 102). Any approach may be used, provided that it is appropriate to the scope of the
system, the constraints of the project, includes the activities of the process listed below in some way, and is
appropriately coordinated with other activities.
Generic inputs are baseline references of the submitted element. If the element is a system, inputs are the logical
and physical architecture elements as described in a system design document, the design description of internal
interfaces to the system and interfaces requirements external to the system, and by extension, the system
requirements. Generic outputs define the verification plan that includes verification strategy, selected verification
actions, verification procedures, verification tools, the verified element or system, verification reports, issue/trouble
reports, and change requests on design.

To establish the verification strategy drafted in a verification plan (this activity is carried out concurrently to system
definition activities), the following steps are necessary:
• Identify verification scope by listing as many characteristics or properties as possible that should be checked. The
number of verification actions can be extremely high.
• Identify constraints according to their origin (technical feasibility, management constraints as cost, time,
availability of verification means or qualified personnel, and contractual constraints that are critical to the
mission) that limit potential verification actions.
• Define appropriate verification techniques to be applied, such as inspection, analysis, simulation, peer-review,
testing, etc., based on the best step of the project to perform every verification action according to the given
constraints.
• Consider a tradeoff of what should be verified (scope) taking into account all constraints or limits and deduce
what can be verified; the selection of verification actions would be made according to the type of system,
objectives of the project, acceptable risks, and constraints.
• Optimize the verification strategy by defining the most appropriate verification technique for every verification
action while defining necessary verification means (tools, test-benches, personnel, location, and facilities)
according to the selected verification technique.
• Schedule the execution of verification actions in the project steps or milestones and define the configuration of
elements submitted to verification actions (this mainly involves testing on physical elements).
Performing verification actions includes the following tasks:
• Detail each verification action; in particular, note the expected results, the verification techniques to be applied,
and the corresponding means required (equipment, resources, and qualified personnel).
• Acquire verification means used during system definition steps (qualified personnel, modeling tools, mocks-up,
simulators, and facilities), and then those used during the integration step (qualified personnel, verification tools,
measuring equipment, facilities, verification procedures, etc.).
• Carry out verification procedures at the right time, in the expected environment, with the expected means, tools,
and techniques.
• Capture and record the results obtained when performing verification actions using verification procedures and
means.
The obtained results must be analyzed and compared to the expected results so that the status may be recorded as
either compliant or non-compliant. Systems engineering (SE) practitioners will likely need to generate verification
reports, as well as potential issue/trouble reports, and change requests on design as necessary.
Controlling the process includes the following tasks:
• Update the verification plan according to the progress of the project; in particular, planned verification actions can
be redefined because of unexpected events.
• Coordinate verification activities with the project manager: review the schedule and the acquisition of means,
personnel, and resources. Coordinate with designers for issues/trouble/non-conformance reports and with the
configuration manager for versions of the physical elements, design baselines, etc.

• verification plans (contain the verification strategy)
• verification matrices (contain the verification action, submitted element, applied technique, step of execution,
system block concerned, expected result, obtained result, etc.)
• verification procedures (describe verification actions to be performed, verification tools needed, the verification
configuration, resources and personnel needed, the schedule, etc.)
• verification reports
• verification tools
• verified elements
• issue / non-conformance / trouble reports
• change requests to the design
This process utilizes the ontology elements displayed in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Main Ontology Elements as Handled within Verification. (SEBoK Original)

Element Definition
Verification Action A verification action describes what must be verified (the element as reference) on which element, the expected result, the
verification technique to apply, on which level of decomposition.
Verification A verification procedure groups a set of verification actions performed together (as a scenario of tests) in a gin verification
Procedure configuration.
Verification Tool A verification tool is a device or physical tool used to perform verification procedures (test bench, simulator, cap/stub,
launcher, etc.).
Verification A verification configuration groups all physical elements (aggregates and verification tools) necessary to perform a
Configuration verification procedure.

characteristics (used for technical risk in engineering). A risk is the combination of vulnerability and of a danger or a threat.
Identifier, name, description (rationale, reasons for defining a verification action, a verification procedure, for using a
verification tool, etc.)

There are several verification techniques to check that an element or a system conforms to its design references or its
specified requirements. These techniques are almost the same as those used for validation, though the application of
the techniques may differ slightly. In particular, the purposes are different; verification is used to detect
faults/defects, whereas validation is used to provide evidence for the satisfaction of (system and/or stakeholder)
requirements. Table 3 below provides descriptions of some techniques for verification.
Table 3. Verification Techniques. (SEBoK Original)

Verification Description
Technique
Inspection Technique based on visual or dimensional examination of an element; the verification relies on the human senses or uses simple
methods of measurement and handling. Inspection is generally non-destructive, and typically includes the use of sight, hearing,
smell, touch, and taste, simple physical manipulation, mechanical and electrical gauging, and measurement. No stimuli (tests) are
necessary. The technique is used to check properties or characteristics best determined by observation (e.g. paint color, weight,
documentation, listing of code, etc.).
Analysis Technique based on analytical evidence obtained without any intervention on the submitted element using mathematical or
probabilistic calculation, logical reasoning (including the theory of predicates), modeling and/or simulation under defined
conditions to show theoretical compliance. Mainly used where testing to realistic conditions cannot be achieved or is not
cost-effective.
Analogy or Technique based on evidence of similar elements to the submitted element or on experience feedback. It is absolutely necessary
Similarity to show by prediction that the context is invariant that the outcomes are transposable (models, investigations, experience
feedback, etc.). Similarity can only be used if the submitted element is similar in design, manufacture, and use; equivalent or
more stringent verification actions were used for the similar element, and the intended operational environment is identical to or
less rigorous than the similar element.
Demonstration Technique used to demonstrate correct operation of the submitted element against operational and observable characteristics
without using physical measurements (no or minimal instrumentation or test equipment). Demonstration is sometimes called
'field testing'. It generally consists of a set of tests selected by the supplier to show that the element response to stimuli is suitable
or to show that operators can perform their assigned tasks when using the element. Observations are made and compared with
predetermined/expected responses. Demonstration may be appropriate when requirements or specification are given in statistical
terms (e.g. mean time to repair, average power consumption, etc.).
Test Technique performed onto the submitted element by which functional, measurable characteristics, operability, supportability, or
performance capability is quantitatively verified when subjected to controlled conditions that are real or simulated. Testing often
uses special test equipment or instrumentation to obtain accurate quantitative data to be analyzed.
Sampling Technique based on verification of characteristics using samples. The number, tolerance, and other characteristics must be
specified to be in agreement with the experience feedback.
Key pitfalls and good practices related to this topic are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing System Verification are provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Major Pitfalls with System Verification (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Description
Confusion between Confusion between verification and validation causes developers to take the wrong reference/baseline to define
verification and verification and validation actions and/or to address the wrong level of granularity (detail level for verification, global
validation level for validation).
No verification strategy One overlooks verification actions because it is impossible to check every characteristic or property of all system
elements and of the system in any combination of operational conditions and scenarios. A strategy (justified selection of
verification actions against risks) must be established.
Save or spend time Skip verification activity to save time.
Use only testing Use only testing as a verification technique. Testing requires checking products and services only when they are
implemented. Consider other techniques earlier during design; analysis and inspections are cost effective and allow
discovering early potential errors, faults, or failures.
Stop verifications when Stopping the performance of verification actions when budget and/or time are consumed. Prefer using criteria such as
funding is diminished coverage rates to end verification activity.
Proven Practices
Table 5. Proven Practices with System Verification. (SEBoK Original)

Start verifications The earlier characteristics of an element are verified in the project, the easier the corrections are to do and the consequences
early in the on schedule and cost will be fewer.
development
Define criteria Carrying out verification actions without limits generates a risk of drift for costs and deadlines. Modifying and verifying in a
ending verifications non-stop cycle until arriving at a perfect system is the best way to never supply the system. Thus, it is necessary to set limits
of cost, time, and a maximum number of modification loops back for each verification action type, ending criteria
(percentages of success, error count detected, coverage rate obtained, etc.).
Involve design Include the verification responsible in the designer team or include some designer onto the verification team.
responsible with
verification
References
Works Cited
Wiley & Sons Inc.
on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Lake, J. 1999. "V & V in Plain English." International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) 9th Annual
International Symposium, Brighton, UK, 6-10 June 1999.
Primary References
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/ Institute of
(NASA), December 2007. NASA/SP-2007-6105.
Buede, D.M. 2009. The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Methods, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
ECSS. 2009. Systems Engineering General Requirements. Noordwijk, Netherlands: Requirements and Standards
Division, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS), 6 March 2009. ECSS-E-ST-10C.
MITRE. 2011. "Verification and Validation." in Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 11 March 2012 at [[1]].
SAE International. 1996. Certification Considerations for Highly-Integrated or Complex Aircraft Systems.
Warrendale, PA, USA: SAE International, ARP475.
(CMU).
Relevant Videos
• Systems Engineering-Test, Evaluation, and Validation [2]

References
[1] http:/ / mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ se_lifecycle_building_blocks/ test_evaluation/ verification_validation. html
[2] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=pcrkmaAx_QA
System Transition
Lead Authors: Scott Jackson, Brian Gallagher
As part of system deployment, on-site installation, check-out, integration, and testing must be carried out to ensure
that the system is fit to be deployed into the field and/or put into an operational context. Transfer is the process that
bridges the gap between qualification and use; it deals explicitly with the handoff from development to logistics,
operations, maintenance, and support.
Definition & Purpose

There are many different approaches to transition or deployment, and many different views on what is included
within transition. The SEBoK uses the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 definition of transition, as seen below (ISO/IEC/IEEE
15288 2015):
[The transition] process installs a verified system, together with relevant enabling systems, e.g.,
operating system, support system, operator training system, user training system, as defined in
agreements. This process is used at each level in the system structure and in each stage to complete the
criteria established for exiting the stage.
Thinking in a linear fashion, the system is transitioned into operation and then would be used and maintained in the
operational environment. However, there are other views on transition. For example, the NASA Systems Engineering
Handbook states that transition can include delivery for end-use as well as delivery of components for integration
(NASA 2007). Using this view, transition is the mechanism for moving system components from implementation
activities into integration activities. The NASA discussion of transition also implies that transition can include
sustainment activities:
The act of delivery or moving of a product from the location where the product has been implemented or
integrated, as well as verified and validated, to a customer.
Many systems are deployed using an iterative or evolutionary approach where operationally useful capabilities are
developed and deployed incrementally. While these operationally useful capabilities are fully deployed and
transitioned into operational use, transition of logistics, maintenance, and support may occur incrementally or be
delayed until after the full system capability is delivered.
Process Approaches
Just as there are multiple views on the definition of transition and deployment, there are also several ways to divide
the activities required for transition. For example, the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook definition of transition
states: This act can include packaging, handling, storing, moving, transporting, installing, and sustainment activities
(2007). However, the SEBoK includes the topic of sustainment as separate from transition; this is instead covered
under the maintenance and logistics topics. The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) views the
transition process as two-step: planning and performance. Though there are several processes for deployment and
transition, most generally include the following activities:
• Develop a Deployment/Transition Strategy - Planning for transition activities would ideally begin early in the
SE life cycle, though it is possible to conduct these activities concurrently with realization activities. Planning
should generally include some consideration of the common lower-level activities of installation, checkout,
integration, and testing. Such activities are crucial to demonstrate that the system and the interfaces with the
operational environment can function as intended and meet the contractual system specifications. For these
activities to be effectively managed and efficiently implemented, the criteria, responsibility, and procedures for
carrying out these activities should be clearly established and agreed upon during the planning phase.
• Develop Plans for Transitioning Systems - or system capabilities into operational use and support. Transition
plans for the system or incremental system capabilities should be consistent with the overall transition strategy
and agreed to by relevant stakeholders. Planning for transition will often include establishing a strategy for
support, which may include organic support infrastructures, contractor logistics support, or other sources (Bernard
et al. 2005, 1-49). It can also include defining the levels of support to be established. The strategy is important
because it drives most of the other transition planning activities, as well as product design considerations.
Transition plans should include considerations for coordination with the following activities:
• Installation - Installation generally refers to the activities required to physically instate the system; this will
likely include connecting interfaces to other systems such as electrical, computer, or security systems, and may
include software interfaces as well. Installation planning should generally document the complexity of the
system, the range of environmental conditions expected in the operational environment, any interface
specifications, and human factors requirements such as safety. When real-world conditions require changes in
the installation requirements, these should be documented and discussed with the relevant stakeholders.
• Integration - Though system integration activities will generally be performed prior to installation, there may
be additional steps for integrating the system into its operational setting. Additionally, if the system is being
delivered incrementally, there will likely be integration steps associated with the transition (for more
information on integration, please see the System Realization knowledge area (KA)).
• Verification and Validation (V&V) - At this stage, V&V for physical, electrical, and mechanical checks may
be performed in order to verify that the system has been appropriately installed. Acceptance tests conducted
after delivery may become part of this process (for additional information on V&V, please see the System
Realization KA). There are several types of acceptance tests which may be used:
• On-site Acceptance Test (OSAT) - This test includes any field acceptance testing and is performed only after
the system has successfully been situated in the operational environment. It may consist of functional tests to
demonstrate that the system is functioning and performing properly.
• Field Acceptance Test - This test includes flight and sea acceptance tests; it is performed, if applicable, only
after the system has successfully passed the OSAT. The purpose of field testing is to demonstrate that the
system meets the performance specifications called for in the system specifications in the actual operating
environment.
• Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) - An OT&E consists of a test series designed to estimate the
operational effectiveness of the system.
• Evaluate the readiness of the system to transition into operations - This is based upon the transition criteria
identified in the transition plan. These criteria should support an objective evaluation of the system’s
readiness for transition. The integration, verification, and validation activities associated with transition may
be used to gauge whether the system meets transition criteria.
• Analyze the results of transition activities throughout and any necessary actions - As a result of analysis,
additional transition activities and actions may be required. The analysis may also identify areas for
improvement in future transition activities.
Some common issues that require additional considerations and SE activities are the utilization or replacement of
legacy systems. It is also common for an organization to continue testing into the early operational phase. The
following activities support these circumstances:
• System Run-In - After the successful completion of the various acceptance tests, the system(s) will be handed
over to the user or designated post-deployment support organization. The tested system(s) may have to be verified
for a stated period (called the system run-in, normally for one to two years) for the adequacy of reliability and
maintainability (R&M) and integrated logistics support (ILS) deliverables. R&M are vital system operational
characteristics having a dominant impact upon the operational effectiveness, the economy of in-service
maintenance support, and the life cycle cost (LCC).
• Phasing-In/Phasing-Out - The need for phasing-in will usually be identified during the system definition, when
it is clear that the new system entails the replacement of an existing system(s) (for additional information, please
see the System Definition KA). These activities should help to minimize disruption to operations and, at the same
time, minimize the adverse effect on operational readiness. It is also important that the phasing-in of a new system
and the phasing-out of an existing system occur in parallel with the systems activities of the system run-in to
maximize resource utilization. Other aspects of phasing-in/phasing-out to be considered include:
• Proper planning for the phasing out of an existing system (if necessary).
• For multi-user or complex systems, phase-by-phase introduction of the system according to levels of
command, formation hierarchy, etc.
• Minimum disruption to the current operations of the users.
• Establishment of a feedback system from users on problems encountered in operation, etc.
• Disposal process including handling of hazardous items, cost of disposal, approval etc.
Applicable Methods & Tools

A system may have to undergo reliability demonstration testing (RDT) to ensure that it meets its contractual R&M
guarantees. RDT is conducted under actual field conditions, especially for large systems purchased in small quantity.
During RDT, the system is operated in the field within stated test duration and all field data are systematically
recorded. At the end of the test period, analysis of the RDT data is performed. Data analysis should facilitate
determination of system reliability. One possible output of this analysis is shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Notional Reliability Analysis. (SEBoK Original)
References
Works Cited
Bernard, S., B. Gallagher, R. Bate, H. Wilson. 2005. CMMI® Acquisition Module (CMMI-AM), version 1.1.
Pittsburg, PA, USA: Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)/Software Engineering Institute (SEI)
CMU/SEI-2005-TR-011.
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
NASA. 2007. Systems Engineering Handbook. Washington, D.C., USA8: National Aeronautics and Space
Primary References
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.1.
None.

System Validation
Lead Author: Alan Faisandier, Contributing Author: Rick Adcock
System Validation is a set of actions used to check the compliance of any element (a system element, a system, a
document, a service, a task, a system requirement, etc.) with its purpose and functions. These actions are planned and
carried out throughout the life cycle of the system. Validation is a generic term that needs to be instantiated within
the context it occurs. When understood as a process, validation is a transverse activity to every life cycle stage of the
system. Particularly during the development cycle of the system, the validation process is performed in parallel with
the system definition and system realization processes and applies to any activity and product resulting from this
activity. The validation process is not limited to a phase at the end of system development, but generally occurs at
the end of a set of life cycle tasks or activities, and always at the end of each milestone of a development project. It
may be performed on an iterative basis on every produced engineering element during development and may begin
with the validation of the expressed stakeholder requirements. When the validation process is applied to the system
when completely integrated, it is often called final validation. It is important to remember that while system
validation is separate from verification, the activities are complementary and intended to be performed in
conjunction.

Validation is the confirmation, through the provision of objective evidence, that the requirements for a specific
intended use or application have been fulfilled. With a note added in ISO 9000:2005: validation is the set of
activities that ensure and provide confidence that a system is able to accomplish its intended use, goals, and
objectives (i.e., meet stakeholder requirements) in the intended operational environment (ISO 2005).
The purpose of validation, as a generic action, is to establish the compliance of any activity output as compared to
inputs of the activity. It is used to provide information and evidence that the transformation of inputs produced the
expected and right result. Validation is based on tangible evidence; i.e., it is based on information whose veracity
can be demonstrated by factual results obtained from techniques or methods such as inspection, measurement, test,
analysis, calculation, etc. Thus, to validate a system (product, service, or enterprise) consists of demonstrating that it
satisfies its system requirements and eventually the stakeholder’s requirements depending on contractual practices.
From a global standpoint, the purpose of validating a system is to acquire confidence in the system’s ability to
achieve its intended mission, or use, under specific operational conditions.
Principles
Concept of Validation Action
Why Validate?
The primary goal of systems engineering (SE) is to develop a solution that meets the needs and requirements of
stakeholders. Validation is the process by which engineers ensure that the system will meet these needs and
requirements.
A validation action is defined and then performed (see Figure 1, below).
Figure 1. Definition and Usage of a Validation Action. (SEBoK Original)
A validation action applied to an engineering element includes the following:

• Identification of the element on which the validation action will be performed.
• Identification of the reference that defines the expected result of the validation action.
Performing the validation action includes the following:
• Obtaining a result by performing the validation action onto the submitted element.
• Comparing the obtained result with the expected result.
• Deducing the degree of compliance of the element.
• Deciding on the acceptability of this compliance, because sometimes the result of the comparison may require a
value judgment to decide whether to accept the obtained result as compared to the relevance of the context of use.
Note: If there is uncertainty about compliance, the cause could come from ambiguity in the requirements.
What to Validate?
Any engineering element can be validated using a specific reference for comparison, such as stakeholder
requirements, system requirements, functions, system elements, documents, etc. Examples are provided in Table 1
below:
Table 1. Examples of Validated Items (SEBoK Original)

Items Explanation for Validation
Document To validate a document is to make sure its content is compliant with the inputs of the task that produced the document.
Stakeholder To validate a stakeholder requirement is to make sure its content is justified and relevant to stakeholders' expectations,
Requirement and System complete and expressed in the language of the customer or end user. To validate a system requirement is to make sure
Requirement its content translates correctly and/or accurately a stakeholder requirement to the language of the supplier.
Design To validate the design of a system (logical and physical architectures) is to demonstrate that it satisfies its system
requirements.
System To validate a system (product, service, or enterprise) is to demonstrate that the product, service, or enterprise satisfies
its system requirements and/or its stakeholder requirements.
Activity To validate an activity or a task is to make sure its outputs are compliant with its inputs.
Process To validate a process is to make sure its outcomes are compliant with its purpose.
Validation versus Verification

The Verification versus Validation section of the System Verification article gives fundamental differences between
the two concepts and associated processes. The Table 2 provides information to help understand these differences.
Table 2. Verification and Validation Differences (may vary with context). (SEBoK Original)
Point of View Verification Validation
Purpose of the Activity Detect, identify faults/defects (supplier Acquire confidence (end user oriented)
oriented)
Idea behind the Term Based on truth (objective/unbiased) Based on value judgement (more subjective)
Level of Concern Detail and local Global in the context of use
Vision Glass box (how it runs inside) Black box (application of inputs provides the expected
effect)
Basic Method Fine-tooth comb Traceability matrix
System (Product, Service, "Done Right" (respects the state of the art); "Does Right" (produces the expected effect); focus on
Enterprise) focus on (physical) characteristics services, functions
Baseline Reference for Comparison System design System requirements (and stakeholder requirements)
(Product, Service, Enterprise)
Order of Performance First Second
Organization of Activity Verification actions are defined and/or Validation actions are defined and/or performed by experts
performed by development/designer team and external members to development/designer team
Validation, Final Validation, and Operational Validation

System validation concerns the global system seen as a whole and is based on the totality of requirements (system
requirements, stakeholders’ requirements, etc.), but it is obtained gradually throughout the development stage in
three non-exclusive ways:
• accumulating the results of verification actions and validation actions provided by the application of
corresponding processes to every engineering element;
• performing final validation actions to the complete, integrated system in an industrial environment (as close as
possible to the operational environment); and
• performing operational validation actions on the complete system in its operational environment (context of use).
Verification and Validation Level per Level

It is impossible to carry out only a single global validation on a complete, integrated complex system. The sources of
faults/defects could be important, and it would be impossible to determine the causes of non-conformance
manifested during this global check. Generally, the system-of-interest (SoI) has been decomposed during design in a
set of layers of systems. Thus, every system and system element is verified, validated, and possibly corrected before
being integrated into the parent system of the higher level, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Verification and Validation Level Per Level. (SEBoK Original)
As necessary, systems and system elements are partially integrated in subsets in order to limit the number of
properties to be verified within a single step. For each level, it is necessary to perform a set of final validation actions
to ensure that features stated at preceding levels are not damaged. Moreover, a compliant result obtained in a given
environment can turn into a non-compliant result if the environment changes. Thus, as long as the system is not
completely integrated and/or doesn't operate in the real operational environment, no result should be regarded as
definitive.
Verification Actions and Validation Actions Inside and Transverse to Levels

Inside each level of system decomposition, verification actions and validation actions are performed during system
definition and system realization. This is represented in Figure 3 for the upper levels, and in Figure 4 for the lower
levels. Stakeholder requirements definition and operational validation make the link between the two levels of the
system decomposition.
Figure 3. Verification and Validation Actions in Upper Levels of System Decomposition. (SEBoK
Original)
Operational validation of system element requirements and products makes the link between the two lower levels of
the decomposition. See Figure 4 below.
Figure 4. Verification and Validation Actions in Lower Levels of System Decomposition. (SEBoK
Original)
Note: The last level of system decomposition is dedicated to the realization of system elements and the vocabulary
and number of activities may be different from what is seen in Figure 4.
Verification and Validation Strategy

The difference between verification and validation is especially useful for elaborating on the integration strategy, the
verification strategy, and the validation strategy. In fact, the efficiency of system realization is gained by optimizing
the three strategies together to form what is often called the verification and validation strategy. This optimization
consists of defining and performing the minimum number of verification and validation actions but detecting the
maximum number of errors/faults/defects and achieving the maximum level of confidence in the system. The
optimization takes into account the risks potentially generated if some verification actions or validation actions are
excluded.
Process Approach
Purpose and Principles of the Approach

The purpose of the validation process is to provide objective evidence that the services provided by a system in use
comply with stakeholder requirements and achieve its intended use in its intended operational environment
(ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 2015). The validation process performs a comparative assessment and confirms that the
stakeholder requirements are correctly defined. Where variance is identified, it is recorded to guide future corrective
actions. System validation is ratified by stakeholders (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 2015).
The validation process demonstrates that the realized end product satisfies its stakeholders' (customers' or other
interested parties') expectations within the intended operational environments with validation performed by
anticipated operators and/or users (NASA 2007, 1-360). Each system element, system, and the complete SoI are
compared against their own applicable requirements (system requirements and stakeholder requirements). This
means that the validation process is instantiated as many times as necessary during the global development of the
system.
In order to ensure that validation is feasible, the implementation of requirements must be verifiable onto a defined
element. It is essential to ensure that requirements are properly written, i.e., quantifiable, measurable, unambiguous,
etc. In addition, verification/validation requirements are often written in conjunction with stakeholder and system
requirements and provide a method for demonstrating the implementation of each system requirement or stakeholder
requirement.
Generic inputs are references of requirements applicable to the submitted element. If the element is a system, inputs
are system requirements and stakeholder requirements.
Generic outputs are the validation plan that includes validation strategy, selected validation actions, validation
procedures, validation tools, validated elements or systems, validation reports, issue/trouble reports, and change
requests on requirements or on the system.

• Establish a validation strategy (often drafted in a validation plan). This activity is carried out concurrently to
system definition activities:
• Identify the validation scope that is represented by (system and/or stakeholder) requirements; normally, every
requirement should be checked as the number of validation actions can be high.
• Identify constraints according to their origin (technical feasibility, management constraints as cost, time,
availability of validation means or qualified personnel, and contractual constraints that are critical to the
mission) that limit or increase potential validation actions.
• Define appropriate verification/validation techniques to be applied, such as inspection, analysis, simulation,
review, testing, etc., depending on the best step of the project to perform every validation action according to
constraints.
• Consider a trade-off of what should be validated (scope) while taking into account all constraints or limits and
deduce what can be validated objectively; selection of validation actions would be made according to the type
of system, objectives of the project, acceptable risks, and constraints.
• Optimize the validation strategy to define the most appropriate validation technique for every validation action,
define necessary validation means (tools, test-benches, personnel, location, and facilities) according to the
selected validation technique, schedule the execution of validation actions in the project steps or milestones,
and define the configuration of elements submitted to validation actions (this is primarily about testing on
physical elements).
• Perform validation actions, including the following tasks:
• Detail each validation action. In particular, note the expected results, the validation technique to be applied,
and the corresponding means necessary (equipment, resources, and qualified personnel).
• Acquire validation means used during the system definition steps (qualified personnel, modeling tools,
mocks-up, simulators, and facilities), then those means used during integration and final and operational steps
(qualified personnel, validation tools, measuring equipment, facilities, validation procedures, etc.).
• Carry out validation procedures at the right time, in the expected environment, with the expected means, tools,
and techniques.
• Capture and record results obtained when performing validation actions using validation procedures and
means.
• Analyze the obtained results and compare them to the expected results. Decide if they comply acceptably. Record
whether the decision and status are compliant or not, and generate validation reports and potential issue/trouble
reports, as well as change requests on (system or stakeholder) requirements as necessary.
• Control the process using following tasks:
• Update the validation plan according to the progress of the project; in particular, planned validation actions can
be redefined because of unexpected events.
• Coordinate validation activities with the project manager regarding the schedule, acquisition of means,
personnel, and resources. Coordinate with the designers for issue/trouble/non-conformance reports. Coordinate
with the configuration manager for versions of physical elements, design baselines, etc.

• a validation plan (contains the validation strategy)
• a validation matrix (contains for each validation action, submitted element, applied technique, step of execution,
system block concerned, expected result, obtained result, etc.)
• validation procedures (describe the validation actions to be performed, the validation tools needed, the validation
configuration, resources, personnel, schedule, etc.)
• validation reports
• validation tools
• the validated element
• issue, non-conformance, and trouble reports
• change requests on requirements, products, services, and enterprises
This process utilizes the ontology elements of Table 3.
Table 3. Main Ontology Elements as Handled within Validation. (SEBoK Original)

Element Definition
Validation Action A validation action describes what must be validated (the element as reference), on which element, the expected result, the
verification technique to apply, on which level of decomposition.
Validation A validation procedure groups a set of validation actions performed together (as a scenario of tests) in a given validation
Procedure configuration.
Validation Tool A validation tool is a device or physical tool used to perform validation procedures (test bench, simulator, cap/stub,
launcher, etc.).
Validation A validation configuration groups the physical elements necessary to perform a validation procedure.
Configuration
characteristics (used for technical risk engineering).
Identifier, name, description, status
Identifier, name, description (rationale, reasons for defining a validation action, a validation procedure, for using a
validation tool, etc.)

The validation techniques are the same as those used for verification, but their purposes are different; verification is
used to detect faults/defects, whereas validation is used to prove the satisfaction of (system and/or stakeholder)
requirements.
The validation traceability matrix is introduced in the stakeholder requirements definition topic. It may also be
extended and used to record data, such as a validation actions list, selected validation techniques to validate
implementation of every engineering element ( stakeholder and system requirements in particular), expected results,
and obtained results when validation actions have been performed. The use of such a matrix enables the development
team to ensure that selected stakeholder and system requirements have been checked, or to evaluate the percentage of
validation actions completed.
Key pitfalls and good practices related to system validation are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing system validation are provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Major Pitfalls with System Validation. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Description
Start validation at the A common mistake is to wait until the system has been entirely integrated and tested (design is qualified) to perform any
end of the project sort of validation. Validation should occur as early as possible in the [product] life cycle (Martin 1997).
Use only testing Use only testing as a validation technique. Testing requires checking products and services only when they are
implemented. Consider other techniques earlier during design; analysis and inspections are cost effective and allow
discovering early potential errors, faults, or failures.
Stop validation when Stop the performance of validation actions when budget and/or time are consumed. Prefer using criteria such as coverage
funding is diminished rates to end validation activity.
Proven Practices
Table 5. Proven Practices with System Validation. (SEBoK Original)

Start Validation It is recommended to start the drafting of the validation plan as soon as the first requirements applicable to the system are known.
Plan Early If the writer of the requirements immediately puts the question to know how to validate whether the future system will answer the
requirements, it is possible to:
• detect the unverifiable requirements
• anticipate, estimate cost, and start the design of validation means (as needed) such as test-benches, simulators
• avoid cost overruns and schedule slippages
Verifiable According to Buede, a requirement is verifiable if a "finite, cost-effective process has been defined to check that the requirement
Requirements has been attained." (Buede 2009) Generally, this means that each requirement should be quantitative, measurable, unambiguous,
understandable, and testable. It is generally much easier and more cost-effective to ensure that requirements meet these criteria
while they are being written. Requirement adjustments made after implementation and/or integration are generally much more
costly and may have wide-reaching redesign implications. There are several resources which provide guidance on creating
appropriate requirements - see the system definition knowledge area, stakeholder requirements, and system requirements topics
for additional information.
Document It is important to document both the validation actions performed and the results obtained. This provides accountability regarding
Validation the extent to which system, system elements, and subsystems fulfill system requirements and stakeholders' requirements. These
Actions data can be used to investigate why the system, system elements, or subsystems do not match the requirements and to detect
potential faults/defects. When requirements are met, these data may be reported to organization parties. For example, in a safety
critical system, it may be necessary to report the results of safety demonstration to a certification organization. Validation results
may be reported to the acquirer for contractual aspects or to internal company for business purpose.
Involve Users Validation will often involve going back directly to the users to have them perform some sort of acceptance test under their own
with Validation local conditions.
Involve Often the end users and other relevant stakeholders are involved in the validation process.
The following are elements that should be considered when practicing any of the activities discussed as a part of
system realization:
• Confusing verification and validation is a common issue. Validation demonstrates that the product, service, and/or
enterprise as provided, fulfills its intended use, whereas verification addresses whether a local work product
properly reflects its specified requirements. Validation actions use the same techniques as the verification actions
(e.g., test, analysis, inspection, demonstration, or simulation).
• State who the witnesses will be (for the purpose of collecting the evidence of success), what general steps will be
followed, and what special resources are needed, such as instrumentation, special test equipment or facilities,
simulators, specific data gathering, or rigorous analysis of demonstration results.
• Identify the test facility, test equipment, any unique resource needs and environmental conditions, required
qualifications and test personnel, general steps that will be followed, specific data to be collected, criteria for
repeatability of collected data, and methods for analyzing the results.
References
Works Cited
Buede, D. M. 2009. The engineering design of systems: Models and methods. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
(NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105, December 2007.
Primary References
Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015.Systems and software engineering - system life cycle processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC 15288:2015.
(NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105, December 2007.
Buede, D.M. 2009. The engineering design of systems: Models and methods. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
DAU. February 19, 2010. Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG). Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition
University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense.
ECSS. 2009. Systems engineering general requirements. Noordwijk, Netherlands: Requirements and Standards
Division, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS), ECSS-E-ST-10C. 6 March 2009.
MITRE. 2011. "Verification and Validation." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 11 March 2012 at [[1]].
SAE International. 1996. Certification considerations for highly-integrated or complex aircraft systems. Warrendale,
PA, USA: SAE International, ARP475.
SEI. 2007. Capability maturity model integrated (CMMI) for development, version 1.2, measurement and analysis
process area. Pittsburg, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).

System Operation
Lead Authors: Scott Jackson, Brian Gallagher, Contributing Author: Leopoldo deCardenas
The role of systems engineering (SE) during the operation of a system consists of ensuring that the system maintains
key mission and business functions and is operationally effective. The systems engineer is one of the stakeholders
who ensures that maintenance actions and other major changes are performed according to the long-term vision of
the system. Both the maintenance actions and any implemented changes must meet the evolving needs of owning
and operating stakeholders consistent with the documented and approved architecture. SE considerations will also
include the eventual decommissioning or disposal of the system so that the disposal occurs according to
disposal/retirement plans. Those plans must account for and be compliant with relevant laws and regulations (for
additional information on disposal or retirement, please see the Product and Service Life Management knowledge
area (KA)). When the system-of-interest (SoI) replaces an existing or legacy system, it may be necessary to manage
the migration between systems such that stakeholders do not experience a breakdown in services (INCOSE 2012).
Definition & Purpose

This process assigns personnel to operate the system and monitors the services and operator-system performance. In
order to sustain services, it identifies and analyzes operational problems in relation to agreements, stakeholder
requirements, and organizational constraints (ISO/IEC/IEEE 2015).
The concept of operations (ConOps) establishes the foundation for initial design specifications according to the
long-term vision. It is also possible that pre-planned program improvements (P3I) had been generated based on
expected evolving requirements. Throughout the systems life cycle, the operation of the system requires the systems
engineer to be an active participant in reviews, change management and integrated master schedule activities to
ensure the system operations continue to meet the evolving needs of stakeholders, and are consistent with the
architecture through the eventual decommissioning or disposal of the system. In the event of decommissioning, a
systems engineer must ensure disposal/retirement plans are compliant with relevant laws and regulations (for
additional information on disposal or retirement, see the Product and Service Life Management KA).
Two additional areas are of interest to the systems engineer during system operation require special attention. First, it
may be determined that a system is at the end of its life cycle, but the cost of replacing the system with a completely
new design is too expensive. In this case, there will be intense engineering activities for service life extension
program (SLEP). The SLEP solution will take into account obsolescence issues, diminishing manufacturing sources
and material shortages (DMSMS), and changes in ConOps. Secondly, in the event that a new SoI is designed and
produced as a complete replacement for an existing or legacy system, it will be necessary to manage the migration
between systems such that stakeholders do not experience a breakdown in services (INCOSE 2012).
Process Approaches
During the operational phase, SE activities ensure the system maintains certain operational attributes and usefulness
throughout its expected life span. Maintaining operational effectiveness consists of evaluating certain operationally
relevant attributes and trends, taking actions to prevent degradation of performance, evolving the system to meet
changing mission or business needs (see the Product and Service Life Management KA), and eventually
decommissioning the system and disposing of its components. During operation, data would be collected to evaluate
the system and determine if changes should be made. It is important to include the process for data collection during
operations when considering design and ConOps. In some cases, data may be collected by sensors and reported
autonomously. In other cases, operators will identify and report on performance during operations. The systems
engineer needs to understand how all data will be collected and presented for further analysis. The systems engineer
will be involved in analysis of this data in several areas, including the following:
• Updating training and development of new training as required for operational and support personnel. Training is
generally developed early with system design and production and executed during integration and operations.
Determination of training updates or changes will be based on evaluation of the operational and support
personnel.
• Evaluation of operational effectiveness. Early in the planning phases of a new system or capability, measures of
operational effectiveness are established based on mission and business goals. These measures are important
during system operation. These attributes are unique for each system and represent characteristics describing the
usefulness of the system as defined and agreed to by system stakeholders. Systems engineers monitor and analyze
these measurements and recommend actions.
• Failure reporting and corrective actions (FRACA) activities will involve the collection and analysis of data during
operations. FRACA data will provide trends involving failures that may require design or component changes.
Some failures may also result in safety issues requiring operational modifications until the offending elements
under analysis can be corrected. If components or systems must be returned to maintenance facilities for
corrective repairs, there will be operational and business impacts due to increased unavailability and unplanned
transportation cost.
Applicable Methods & Tools

Operations manuals generally provide operators the steps and activities required to run the system.
Training and Certification

Adequate training must be provided for the operators who are required to operate the system. There are many
objectives of training:
• Provide initial training for all operators in order to equip them with the skill and knowledge to operate the system.
Ideally, this process will begin prior to system transition and will facilitate delivery of the system. It is important
to define the certification standards and required training materials up front (for more information on material
supply, please see Logistics).
• Provide continuation training to ensure currency of knowledge.
• Monitor the qualification/certification of the operators to ensure that all personnel operating the system meet the
minimum skill requirements and that their currency remains valid.
• Monitor and evaluate the job performance to determine the adequacy of the training program.
The operation process sustains system services by assigning trained personnel to operate the system, as well as by
monitoring operator-system performance and monitoring the system performance. In order to sustain services, the
operation process identifies and analyzes operational problems in relation to agreements, stakeholder requirements,
and organizational constraints. When the system replaces an existing system, it may be necessary to manage the
migration between systems such that persistent stakeholders do not experience a breakdown in services.
Results of a successful implementation of the operation process include:
• Definition and refinement of an operation strategy along the way
• Delivery of services that meet stakeholder requirements
• Satisfactory completion of approved, corrective action requests
• Continued stakeholder satisfaction
Outputs of the operation process include:
• Operational strategy, including staffing and sustainment of enabling systems and materials
• System performance reports (statistics, usage data, and operational cost data)
• System trouble/anomaly reports with recommendations for appropriate action
• Operational availability constraints to influence future design and specification of similar systems or reused
system elements
Activities of the operation process include:
• Providing operator training to sustain a pool of operators
• Tracking system performance and accounting for operational availability
• Performing operational analysis
• Managing operational support logistics
• Documenting system status and actions taken
• Reporting malfunctions and recommendations for improvement
References
Works Cited
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Primary References
Blanchard, B.S. and W.J. Fabrycky. 2011. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
USA: Prentice Hall.
Institute of Engineers Singapore. 2009. Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge. Provisional version 2.0. Singapore:
Institute of Engineers Singapore.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
None.

System Maintenance
Lead Authors: Scott Jackson, Brian Gallagher, Contributing Author: David Dorgan
System Maintenance planning begins early in the acquisition process with development of a maintenance concept.
Maintenance planning is conducted to evolve and establish requirements and tasks to be accomplished for achieving,
restoring, and maintaining operational capability for the life of the system. For a system to be sustained throughout
its system life cycle, the maintenance process has to be executed concurrently with the operations process
(ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 2015, Clause 6.4.9).
Overview
The initial requirements for maintenance have to be defined during the stakeholder needs and requirement definition
process (Clause 6.4.1) (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 2015) and continue to evolve during the development and operation of
the system. Considerations include:
• Maximizing system availability to meet the operational requirements. This has to take into account the
designed-in reliability and maintainability of the system and resources available.
• Preserving system operating potential through proper planning of system scheduled maintenance. This requires a
reliability-centered maintenance strategy that incorporates preventive maintenance in order to preempt failures,
thereby extending the mean time between corrective maintenance, as well as enhancing the availability of the
system.
• Segmenting maintenance activities for potential outsourcing of non-critical activities to approved maintenance
subcontractors as to optimize scarce technical manpower resources and maintenance/repair turn-around times.
• Harnessing IT technology for maintenance management. This involves rigorous and systematic capturing and
tracking of operating and maintenance activities to facilitate analysis and planning.
Maintenance management is concerned with the development and review of maintenance plans, as well as securing
and coordinating resources, such as budget, service parts provisioning, and management of supporting tasks (e.g.,
contract administration, engineering support, and quality assurance). Maintenance planning relies on level of repair
analysis (LORA) as a function of the system acquisition process. Initial planning addresses actions and support
necessary to ensure a minimum life cycle cost (LCC).
Process Approaches
The purpose of the maintenance process is to sustain the capability of a system to provide a service. This process
monitors the system’s capability to deliver services, records problems for analysis, takes corrective, adaptive,
perfective, and preventive actions, and confirms restored capability. As a result of the successful implementation of
the maintenance process:
• a maintenance strategy is developed
• maintenance constraints are provided as inputs to requirements
• replacement system elements are made available
• services meeting stakeholder requirements are sustained
• the need for corrective design changes is reported
• failure and lifetime data are recorded
The project should implement the following activities and tasks in accordance with applicable organization policies
and procedures with respect to the maintenance process:
• scheduled servicing, such as daily inspection/checks, servicing, and cleaning
• unscheduled servicing (carrying out fault detection and isolation to the faulty replaceable unit and replacement of
the failed unit)
• re-configuration of the system for different roles or functions
• scheduled servicing (higher level scheduled servicing but below depot level)
• unscheduled servicing (carrying out more complicated fault isolation to the faulty replaceable unit and
replacement of the failed unit)
• minor modifications
• minor damage repairs
• major scheduled servicing (e.g., overhaul and corrosion treatment)
• major repairs (beyond normal removal and replacement tasks)
The maintenance plan specifies the scheduled servicing tasks and intervals (preventive maintenance) and the
unscheduled servicing tasks (adaptive or corrective maintenance). Tasks in the maintenance plan are allocated to the
various maintenance agencies. A maintenance allocation chart is developed to tag the maintenance tasks to the
appropriate maintenance agencies. These include: in-service or in-house work centers, approved contractors,
affiliated maintenance or repair facilities, original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), etc. The maintenance plan also
establishes the requirements for the support resources.
Related activities such as resource planning, budgeting, performance monitoring, upgrades, longer term
supportability, and sustenance also need to be managed. These activities are planned, managed, and executed over a
longer time horizon and they concern the well-being of the system over the entire life cycle.
Proper maintenance of the system (including maintenance-free system designs) relies very much on the availability
of support resources, such as support and test equipment (STE), technical data and documentation, personnel, spares,
and facilities. These have to be factored in during the acquisition agreement process.
Training and Certification

Adequate training must be provided for the technical personnel maintaining the system. While initial training may
have been provided during the deployment phase, additional personnel may need to be trained to cope with the
increased number of systems being fielded, as well as to cater to staff turnover. Timely updates to training materials
and trained personnel may be required as part of system upgrades and evolution. It is important to define the
certification standards and contract for the training materials as part of the supply agreement.
The organization responsible for maintaining the system should have clear thresholds established to determine
whether a change requested by end users, changes to correct latent defects, or changes required to fulfill the evolving
mission are within the scope of a maintenance change or require a more formal project to step through the entire
systems engineering life-cycle. Evaluation criteria to make such a decision could include cost, schedule, risk, or
criticality characteristics.
References
Works Cited
Primary References
Blanchard, B.S. and W.J. Fabrycky. 2011. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice Hall.
(DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Institute of Engineers Singapore. 2009. Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge, Provisional version 2.0. Singapore:
Institute of Engineers Singapore.
IISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015.Systems and Software Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
None.

Logistics 524
Logistics
Lead Authors: Scott Jackson, John Snoderly, Contributing Author: Garry Roedler
There are several definitions for logistics within systems engineering (SE) and the definition used will determine
what activities are considered part of logistics. The SEBoK defines logistics as the science of planning and
implementing the acquisition and use of the resources necessary to sustain the operation of a system.
Overview
The ability to sustain the operation of a system is determined by the inherent supportability of the system (a function
of design) and the processes used to sustain the functions and capabilities of the system in the context of the end
user. Figure 1, below, shows a Defense Acquisition University (DAU) model of the SE aspects for consideration in
logistics and logistics planning (DAU 2010).
Figure 1. Affordable System Operational Effectiveness (DAU Guidebook 2010). Released by Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S.
Logistics 525
Sustainment Planning
The focus of sustainment planning is to influence the inherent supportability of the system and to plan the
sustainment capabilities and processes that will be used to sustain system operations.
Influence Inherent Supportability (Operational Suitability)

Sustainment influence requires an understanding of the concept of operations (ConOps), system missions, mission
profiles, and system capabilities to understand the rationale behind functional and performance priorities.
Understanding the rationale paves the way for decisions about necessary tradeoffs between system performance,
availability, and life cycle cost (LCC), with impact on the cost effectiveness of system operation, maintenance, and
logistics support. There is no single list of sustainment considerations or specific way of grouping them as they are
highly inter-related. They include: compatibility, interoperability, transportability, reliability, maintainability,
manpower, human factors, safety, natural environment effects (including occupational health, habitability; see
Environmental Engineering); diagnostics & prognostics (including real-time maintenance data collection), and
corrosion protection & mitigation. The following are key design considerations:
• Architecture Considerations - The focus on openness, modularity, scalability, and upgradeability is critical to
implementing an incremental acquisition strategy. In addition, the architecture attributes that expand system
flexibility and affordability can pay dividends later when obsolescence and end-of-life issues are resolved through
a concerted technology refreshment strategy. Trade-offs are often required relative to the extent each attribute is
used.
• Reliability Considerations: - Reliability is critical because it contributes to a system's effectiveness as well as its
suitability in terms of logistics burden and the cost to fix failures. For each system, there is a level of basic
reliability that must be achieved for the system to be considered useful. Reliability is also one of the most critical
elements in determining the logistics infrastructure and footprint. Consequently, system reliability should be a
primary focus during design (along with system technical performance, functions, and capabilities). The primary
objective is to achieve the necessary probability of operational success and minimize the risk of failure within
defined availability, cost, schedule, weight, power, and volume constraints. While performing such analyses,
trade-offs should be conducted and dependencies should be explored with system maintainability and integrated
with the supportability analysis that addresses support event frequency (i.e. reliability), event duration, and event
cost. Such a focus will play a significant role in minimizing the necessary logistics footprint, while maximizing
system availability.
• Maintainability Considerations - The design emphasis on maintainability is to reduce the maintenance burden
and supply chain by reducing the time, personnel, tools, test equipment, training, facilities and cost to maintain
the system. Maintainability engineering includes the activities, methods, and practices used to design minimal
system maintenance requirements (designing out unnecessary and inefficient processes) and associated costs for
preventive and corrective maintenance as well as servicing or calibration activities. Maintainability should be a
designed-in capability and not an add-on option because good maintenance procedures cannot overcome poor
system and equipment maintainability design. The primary objective is to reduce the time it takes for a properly
trained maintainer to detect and isolate the failure (coverage and efficiency) and affect repair. Intrinsic factors
contributing to maintainability are:
• Modularity - Packaging of components such that they can be repaired via remove and replace action vs.
on-board repair. Care should be taken not to over modularize, and trade-offs to evaluate replacement,
transportation, and repair costs should be accomplished to determine the most cost-effective approach.
• Interoperability - The compatibility of components with standard interface protocols to facilitate rapid repair
and enhancement/upgrade through black box technology using common interfaces. Physical interfaces should
be designed so that mating between components can only happen correctly.
Logistics 526
• Physical accessibility - The designed-in structural assurance that components which require more frequent
monitoring, checkout, and maintenance can be easily accessed. This is especially important in low observable
platforms. Maintenance points should be directly visible and accessible to maintainers, including access for
corrosion inspection and mitigation.
• Designs that require minimum preventative maintenance including corrosion prevention and mitigation.
Emphasis should be on balancing the maintenance requirement over the life cycle with minimal user workload.
• Embedded training and testing when it is determined to be the optimal solution from a total ownership cost
(TOC) and materiel availability perspective.
• Human Systems Integration (HSI) to optimize total system performance and minimize life-cycle costs by
designing systems and incorporating technologies that (a) require minimal manpower, (b) provide effective
training, (c) can be operated and maintained by users, (d) are suitable (habitable and safe with minimal
environmental and occupational health hazards), and (e) are survivable (for both the user and the equipment).
• Support Considerations - Support features cannot be easily added-on after the design is established.
Consequently, supportability should be a high priority early in the program's planning and integral to the system
design and development process. Support features cut across reliability, maintainability, and the supply chain to
facilitate detection, isolation, and timely repair/replacement of system anomalies. These include features for
servicing and other activities necessary for operation and support including resources that contribute to the overall
support of the system. Typical supportability features include diagnostics, prognostics (see CBM+ Guidebook),
calibration requirements, many HSI issues (e.g. training, safety, HFE, occupational health, etc.), skill levels,
documentation, maintenance data collection, compatibility, interoperability, transportability, handling (e.g.,
lift/hard/tie down points, etc.), packing requirements, facility requirements, accessibility, and other factors that
contribute to an optimum environment for sustaining an operational system.
Planning Sustainment Processes

Process efficiency reflects how well the system can be produced, operated, serviced (including fueling) and
maintained. It reflects the degree to which the logistics processes (including the supply chain), infrastructure, and
footprint have been balanced to provide an agile, deployable, and operationally effective system.
Achieving process efficiency requires early and continuing emphasis on the various logistics support processes along
with the design considerations. The continued emphasis is important because processes present opportunities for
improving operational effectiveness even after the design-in window has passed via lean-six sigma, supply chain
optimization, or other continuous process improvement (CPI) techniques.
Sustainment Analysis (Product Support Package)

The product support package documents the output of supportability analysis and includes details related to the
following twelve elements (links below are to excerpts from (NATO RTO 2001):
• Product/information technology (IT) system/medical system support management (integrated life cycle
sustainment planning)
• product/IT system/medical system support strategies
• life cycle sustainment planning
• requirements management
• total ownership costs (TOC)/life cycle costs (LCC) planning & management
• Integration and management of product support activities
• configuration management
• production & distribution
• energy, environmental, safety and health (EESH) management
• policies & guidance
Logistics 527
• risk management
• Design Interface [1]
• reliability
• maintainability
• supportability
• affordability
• safety requirements
• environmental and hazardous materials (HAZMAT) requirements
• human systems integration (HSI)
• calibration
• anti-tamper
• habitability
• disposal
• legal requirements
• Sustainment Engineering
• failure reporting, analysis, and corrective action system (FRACAS)
• value engineering
• diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages (DMSMS)
• Supply Support (materiel planning) [2]
• Maintenance Planning [3]
• reliability centered maintenance (RCM)
• maintenance concepts
• levels of maintenance (level of repair analysis)
• condition-based maintenance
• prognostics & health management
• Support Equipment [4]
• Technical Data [5]
• Manpower & Personnel [6]
• Training & Training Support [7]
• Facilities & Infrastructure [8]
• Packaging, Handling, Storage, & Transportation [9]
• Computer Resources [10]
Logistics 528
Sustainment Implementation
Once the system becomes operational, the results of sustainment planning efforts need to be implemented. SE
supports the execution of the twelve integrated product support elements of a sustainment program that strives to
ensure the system meets operational performance requirements in the most cost-effective manner over its total
remaining life cycle, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Sustainment Implementation Illustration (DAU Guidebook 2012). Released by Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S.
Once a system is put into use, SE is often required to correct problems that degrade continued use, and/or to add new
capabilities to improve product performance in the current or a new environment. In the context of integrated
product support, these SE activities correspond to the integrated product support (IPS) element Sustaining
Engineering. Changes made to fielded systems to correct problems or increase performance should include any
necessary adjustments to the IPS elements, and should consider the interrelationships and integration of the elements
to maintain the effectiveness of the system’s support strategy.
The degree of change required to the product support elements varies with the severity of the problem. Minor
problems may require a simple adjustment to a maintenance procedure, a change of supplier, a training course
modification or a change to a technical manual. In contrast, problems that require system or component redesign may
require engineering change proposals and approvals, IPS element trade studies, business case analysis, and updates
to the product support strategy. The focus is to correct problems that degrade continued use, regardless of the degree
of severity.
Evolutionary systems provide a strategy for acquisition of mature technology; the system delivers capabilities
incrementally, planning for future capability enhancements. A system of systems (SoS) perspective is required for
these systems to synchronize the primary and sustainment systems.
Logistics 529
For more information refer to: An Enterprise Framework for Operationally Effective System of Systems Design
(Bobinis and Herald 2012.).
References
Works Cited
Bobinis, J. and T. Herald. 2012. “An enterprise framework for operationally effective system of systems design.”
Journal of Enterprise Architecture. Vol. 8, no. 2, May 2012. Available at: https://
www.mendling.com/publications/JEA12-2.pdf.
(DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
NATO RTO. 2001. Logistics Test and Evaluation in Flight Test. Flight Test Techniques Series – Volume 20.
Quebec, Canada: North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Research and Technology Organization (RTO).
RTO-AG-300 Vol. 20, AC/323(SCI-010)TP/38. Table of contents available at: http:/ / ftp. rta. nato. int/ public/ /
PubFullText/RTO/AG/RTO-AG-300-V20///AG-300-V20-$$TOC.pdf
Primary References
Blanchard, B.S. 1998. Logistics Engineering and Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Blanchard, B. and W. Fabrycky. 2011. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:
Prentice-Hall.
Bobinis, J. and T. Herald. 2012. “An enterprise framework for operationally effective system of systems design.”
Journal of Enterprise Architecture. Vol. 8, no. 2, May 2012. Available at: https://
www.mendling.com/publications/JEA12-2.pdf.
Daganzo, C. 2005. Logistics Systems Analysis, 4th Edition. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Fabrycky, W.J. and B.S. Blanchard. 1991. Life-Cycle Cost and Economic Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA:
Prentice-Hall.
Ghiani, G., G. Laporte, and R. Musmanno. 2004. Introduction to Logistics Systems Planning and Control. Hoboken,
NJ, USA: Wiley-Interscience.
Jones, J.V. 1995. Integrated Logistics Support Handbook. New York, NY, USA: McGraw Hill.
Barros, L.L. 1998. "The optimization of repair decision using life-cycle cost parameters." IMA Journal of
Management Mathematics. Vol. 9, no. 4, p. 403.
Berkowitz, D., J.N. Gupta, J.T. Simpson, and J.B. McWilliams. 2005. Defining and Implementing
Performance-Based Logistics in Government. Washington, DC, USA: Defense Technical Information Center.
Accessed 6 Sept 2011. Available at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADP018510.
Gajpal, P.P., L.S. Ganesh, and C. Rajendran. 1994. "Criticality analysis of spare parts using the analytic hierarchy
process." International Journal of Production Economics. Vol. 35, nos. 1-3 pp. 293-297.
MITRE. 2011. "Integrated logistics support." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 11 March 2012. Available at:
[[11]].
Murthy, D.N.P. and W.R. Blischke. 2000. "Strategic warranty management: A life-cycle approach." Engineering
Management. Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 40-54.
Northrop Grumman Corporation. 2000. Logistics Systems Engineering. Accessed 6 Sept 2011. Available at: http:/ /
www. northropgrumman. com/ Capabilities/ NavigationSystemsLogisticsSystemsEngineering/ Documents/
Logistics 530
nsd_logistics.pdf.
Solomon, R., P.A. Sandborn, and M.G. Pecht. 2000. "Electronic part life cycle concepts and obsolescence
forecasting." IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies. Vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 707-717.
Spengler, T. and M. Schroter. 2003. "Strategic management of spare parts in closed-loop supply chains: A system
dynamics approach." Interfaces. pp. 7-17.

References
[1] http:/ / ftp. rta. nato. int/ public/ PubFullText/ RTO/ AG/ RTO-AG-300-V20/ AG-300-V20-12. pdf
[8] http:/ / www. decisionlens. com/ docs/ WP_Strategic_Facilities_and_Infrastructure_Planning. pdf
[11] http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ acquisition_systems_engineering/ integrated_logistics_support/
531
Knowledge Area: Service Life Management
Service Life Management

Contributing Author: William Stiffler
Product and service life management deals with the overall life cycle planning and support of a system. The life of a
product or service spans a considerably longer period of time than the time required to design and develop the
system. Systems engineers need to understand and apply the principles of life management throughout the life cycle
of the system. (See Life Cycle Models for a general discussion of life cycles.) Specifically, this knowledge area (KA)
focuses on changes to a system after deployment, including extension, modernization, disposal, and retirement.
Topics
• Service Life Extension
• Capability Updates, Upgrades, and Modernization
• Disposal and Retirement
Overview
Product and service life management is also referred to as system sustainment. Sustainment involves the
supportability of operational systems from the initial procurement to disposal. Sustainment is a key task for systems
engineering that influences product and service performance and support costs for the entire life of the program.
Sustainment activities include: design for maintainability, application of built-in test, diagnostics, prognostics and
other condition-based maintenance techniques, implementation of logistics footprint reduction strategies,
identification of technology insertion opportunities, identification of operations and support cost reduction
opportunities, and monitoring of key support metrics. Life cycle sustainment plans should be created for large,
complex systems (DAU 2010). Product and service life management applies to both commercial systems (e.g.
energy generation and distribution systems, information management systems, the Internet, and health industries)
and government systems (e.g. defense systems, transportation systems, water-handling systems, and government
services).
It is critical that the planning for system life management occur during the requirements phase of system
development. (See System Requirements and System Definition). The requirements phase includes the analysis of
life cycle cost alternatives, as well as gaining the understanding of how the system will be sustained and modified
once it is operational.
The body of knowledge associated with product and service life management includes the following areas:
1. Service Life Extension - Systems engineers need to understand the principles of service life extension, the
challenges that occur during system modifications, and issues involved with the disposal and retirement after a
system has reached the end of its useful life.
2. Modernization and Upgrades - Managing service life extension uses the engineering change management process
with an understanding of the design life constraints of the system. Modernizing existing legacy systems requires
special attention and understanding of the legacy requirements and the importance of having a complete inventory
of all the system interfaces and technical drawings.
3. Disposal and Retirement - Disposal and retirement of a product after reaching its useful life requires attention to
environmental concerns, special handling of hazardous waste, and concurrent operation of a replacement system
as the existing system is being retired.
Principles and Standards

The principles of product and service life management apply to different types of systems and domains. The type of
system (commercial or government) should be used to select the correct body of knowledge and best practices that
exist in different domains. For example, U.S. military systems would rely on sustainment references and best
practices from the Department of Defense (DoD) (e.g., military services, Defense Acquisition University (DAU),
etc.) and military standardization bodies (e.g., the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the Society of Logistics Engineers (SOLE), the Open Geospatial
Consortium (OGC), etc.).
Commercial aviation, power distribution, transportation, water-handling systems, the Internet, and health industries
would rely on system life management references and best practices from a combination of government agencies,
local municipalities, and commercial standardization bodies and associations (e.g., in the U.S.- the Department of
Transportation (DOT), State of Michigan, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), etc.).
Some standardization bodies have developed system life management practices that bridge both military and
commercial systems (e.g., INCOSE, SOLE, ISO, IEEE, etc.). There are multiple commercial associations involved
with defining engineering policies, best practices, and requirements for commercial product and service life
management. Each commercial association has a specific focus for the market or domain area where the product is
used. Examples of such commercial associations in the U.S. include: American Society of Hospital Engineering
(ASHE); Association of Computing Machinery (ACM); American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME);
American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) International; National Association of Home Builders (NAHB);
and Internet Society (ISOC), including Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and SAE.
In addition, there are several specific resources which provide useful information on product and service life
management:
• The INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, version 3.2.2, identifies several relevant points regarding product
and service life management (2011).
• The Systems Engineering Guidebook for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), version 1.1, provides guidance
on product changes and system retirement (Caltrans and USDOT 2005).
• Systems Engineering and Analysis emphasizes design for supportability and provides a framework for product
and service supportability and planning for system retirement (Blanchard and Fabrycky 2006).
• Modernizing Legacy Systems identifies strategies for product and service modernization (Seacord, Plakosh, and
Lewis 2003).
• "Logistics and Materiel Readiness" (http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/ [1]) provides online policies, procedures, and
planning references for product service life extension, modernization, and retirement (OUSD(AT&L) 2011).
• A Multidisciplinary Framework for Resilience to Disasters and Disruptions provides insight into architecting a
system for extended service life (Jackson 2007).
Good Practices
Major pitfalls associated with systems engineering (SE) after the deployment of products and services can be
avoided if the systems engineer:
• Recognizes that the systems engineering process does not stop when the product or service becomes operational.
• Understands that certain life management functions and organizations, especially in the post-delivery phase of the
life cycle, are part of the systems engineering process.
• Identifies that modifications need to comply with the system requirements.
• Considers that the users must be able to continue the maintenance activities drawn up during the system
requirement phase after an upgrade or modification to the system is made.
• Accounts for changing user requirements over the system life cycle.
• Adapts the support concepts drawn up during development throughout the system life cycle.
• Applies engineering change management to the total system.
Not addressing these areas of concern early in development and throughout the product or service’s life cycle can
have dire consequences.
References
Works Cited
Blanchard, B.S. and W.J. Fabrycky. 2011. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice-Hall International
1.1. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Research &
DAU. 2010. “Acquisition Community Connection (ACC): Where the DoD AT&L workforce meets to share
knowledge.” Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/US Department of Defense (DoD).
https://acc.dau.mil.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Jackson. 2007. “A Multidisciplinary Framework for Resilience to Disasters and Disruptions.” Journal of Integrated
Design and Process Science. 11(2).
OUSD(AT&L). 2011. “Logistics and Materiel Readiness On-line policies, procedures, and planning references.”
Arlington, VA, USA: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Aquisition, Transportation and Logistics
(OUSD(AT&L)). http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/.
Seacord, R.C., D. Plakosh, and G.A. Lewis. 2003. Modernizing Legacy Systems: Software Technologies,
Engineering Processes, and Business Practices. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education.
Primary References
Caltrans and USDOT. 2005. Systems Engineering Guidebook for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), ver 1.1.
Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Research and Innovation and
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), SEG for ITS 1.1.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Jackson, S. 2007. “A Multidisciplinary Framework for Resilience to Disasters and Disruptions.” Journal of
Integrated Design and Process Science. 11(2).
Arlington, VA, USA: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Transportation and Logistics
(OUSD(AT&L). http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/.
Blanchard, B.S. 2010. Logistics engineering and management, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall:
341-342.
Braunstein, A. 2007. “Balancing Hardware End-of-Life Costs and Responsibilities.” Westport, CT, USA: Experture
Group, ETS 07-12-18.
Brown, M., R. Weyers, and M. Sprinkel. 2006. “Service Life Extension of Virginia Bridge Decks afforded by
Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement.” Journal of ASTM International (JAI). 3(2): 13.
DLA. 2010. “Defense logistics agency disposition services.” In Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)/U.S. Department
of Defense [database online]. Battle Creek, MI, USA, accessed June 19 2010: 5. Available at: http:/ / www. dtc. dla.
mil.
EPA. 2010. “Wastes In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)." Washington, D.C. Available at: http:/ /
www.epa.gov/epawaste/index.htm.
Finlayson, B. and B. Herdlick. 2008. Systems Engineering of Deployed Systems. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns
Hopkins University: 28.
FSA. 2010. “Template for 'System Retirement Plan' and 'System Disposal Plan'.” In Federal Student Aid (FSA)/U.S.
Department of Eduation (DoEd). Washington, DC, USA. Accessed August 5, 2010. Available at: http:/ /
federalstudentaid.ed.gov/business/lcm.html.
Gehring, G., D. Lindemuth, and W.T. Young. 2004. “Break Reduction/Life extension Program for CAST and
Ductile Iron Water Mains.” Paper presented at NO-DIG 2004, Conference of the North American Society for
Trenchless Technology (NASTT), March 22-24, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Hovinga, M.N., and G.J. Nakoneczny. 2000. “Standard Recommendations for Pressure Part Inspection during a
Boiler Life Extension Program.” Paper presented at ICOLM (International Conference on Life Management and Life
Extension of Power Plant), May, Xi’an, P.R. China.
IEC. 2007. Obsolescence Management - Application Guide, ed 1.0. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 62302.

Ihii, K., C.F. Eubanks, and P. Di Marco. 1994. “Design for Product Retirement and Material Life-Cycle.” Materials
& Design. 15(4): 225-33.
INCOSE UK Chapter. 2010. Applying Systems Engineering to In-Service Systems: Supplementary Guidance to the
INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, version 3.2, issue 1.0. Foresgate, UK: International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE) UK Chapter: 10, 13, 23.
Institute of Engineers Singapore. 2009. Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge, provisional, version 2.0.
Singapore.
Jackson, S. 1997. Systems Engineering for Commercial Aircraft. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Koopman, P. 1999. “Life Cycle Considerations.” Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Carnegie Mellon. Accessed August 5, 2010.
Available at: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/des_s99/life_cycle/index.html.
L3 Communications. 2010. “Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).” Newport News, VA, USA: L3
Communications, Flight International Aviation LLC.
Livingston, H. 2010. “GEB1: Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Management
Practices.” McClellan, CA, USA: Defense MicroElectronics Activity (DMEA)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
Minneapolis-St. Paul Chapter of SOLE. 2003. "Systems Engineering in Systems Deployment and Retirement,
presented to INCOSE." Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, USA: International Society of Logistics (SOLE), Minneapolis-St.
Paul Chapter.
NAS. 2006. National Airspace System (NAS) System Engineering Manual, version 3.1 (volumes 1-3). Washington,
D.C.: Air Traffic Organization (ATO)/U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NAS SEM 3.1.
Administration (NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105, December 2007.
Nguyen, L. 2006. “Adapting the Vee Model to Accomplish Systems Engineering on Change Projects.” Paper
presented at 9th Annual National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Systems Engineering Conference, San
Diego, CA, USA.
Office of Natural Gas and Oil Technology. 1999. Reservoir LIFE Extension Program: Encouraging Production of
Remaining Oil and Gas. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Energy (DoE).
Paks Nuclear Power Plant. 2010. “Paks Nuclear Power Plant: Service Life Extension.” In Paks Nuclear Power Plant,
Ltd.. Hungary, accessed August 5, 2010. Available at: http://paksnuclearpowerplant.com/service-life-extension.
Ryen, E. 2008. Overview of the Systems Engineering Process. Bismarck, ND, USA: North Dakota Department of
Transportation (NDDOT).
SAE International. 2010. “Standards: Commercial Vehicle--Maintenance and Aftermarket.” Warrendale, PA, USA:
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International.
SAE International. 2010. “Standards: Maintenance and Aftermarket.” Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) International.
Sukamto, S. 2003. “Plant Aging and Life Extension Program at Arun LNG Plant Lhokseumawe, North Aceh,
Indonesia.” Paper presented at 22nd Annual World Gas Conference, June 1-5, Tokyo, Japan.

References
[1] http:/ / www. acq. osd. mil/ log/
Service Life Extension

Lead Author: William Stiffler, Contributing Author: Brian Wells
Product and service life extension involves continued use of a product and/or service beyond its original design life.
Product and service life extension involves assessing the risks and the life cycle cost (LCC) of continuing the use of
the product or service versus the cost of a replacement system.
Service life extension (SLE) emphasizes reliability upgrades and component replacement or rebuilding of the system
to delay the system’s entry into wear-out status due to issues such as expensive sustainment, reliability, safety, and/or
performance requirements that can no longer be met. The goal is typically to return the system to as new a condition
as possible while remaining consistent with the economic constraints of the program.
SLE is regarded as an environmentally friendly way to relieve rampant waste by prolonging the useful life of retiring
products and preventing them from being discarded too early when they still have unused value. However,
challenged by fast-changing technology and physical deterioration, a major concern in planning a product SLE is
considering to what degree a product or service is fit to have its life extended.
Topic Overview
SLE is typically required in the following circumstances:
• The system no longer meets the system performance or reliability requirements.
• The cost of operation and maintenance exceeds the cost of SLE, or the available budgets.
• Parts are no longer available for repair and maintenance.
• Operation of the system violates rules or regulations, such as environmental or safety regulations.
• Parts of the system are about to reach their operations life limits, which will result in the issue listed above
occurring.
It is best if systems engineers use a proactive approach that predicts ahead, so that SLE can be accomplished before
the system fails to meet its requirements and before the operations and support costs rise above acceptable limits.
Key factors that must be considered by the systems engineer during service life extension include:
• current life cycle costs of the system
• design life and expected remaining useful life of the system
• software maintenance
• warranty policy
• availability of parts, subsystems, and manufacturing sources
• availability of system documentation to support life extension
System design life is a major consideration for SLE. System design life parameters are established early on during
the system design phase and include key assumptions involving safety limits and material life. Safety limits and the
properties of material aging are critical to defining system life extension. Jackson emphasizes the importance of
architecting for system resiliency in increasing system life. He also points out that a system can be architected to
withstand internal and external disruptions (2007, 91-108). Systems that age through use, such as aircraft, bridges,
and nuclear power plants, require periodic inspection to ascertain the degree of aging and fatigue. The results of
inspections determine the need for actions to extend the product life (Elliot, Chen, and Swanekamp 1998, sec. 6.5).
Software maintenance is a critical aspect of SLE. The legacy system may include multiple computer resources that
have been in operation for a period of many years and have essential functions that must not be disrupted during the
upgrade or integration process. Typically, legacy systems include a computer resource or application software
program that continues to be used because the cost of replacing or redesigning it is prohibitive. The Software
Engineering Institute (SEI) has addressed the need for SLE of software products and services and provides useful
guidance in the online library for Software Product Lines (SEI 2010, 1). (See Systems Engineering and Software
Engineering for additional discussion of software engineering (SwE) factors to consider.)
Systems engineers have found that service life can be extended through the proper selection of materials. For
example, transportation system elements such as highway bridges and rail systems are being designed for extended
service life by using special epoxy-coated steel (Brown, Weyers, and Spinkel 2006, 13). Diminishing manufacturing
sources and diminishing suppliers need to be addressed early in the SLE process. Livingston (2010) in Diminishing
Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Management Practices provides a method for addressing
product life extension when the sources of supply are an issue. He addresses the product life cycle model and
describes a variety of methods that can be applied during system design to minimize the impact of future component
obsolescence issues.
During product and service life extension, it is often necessary to revisit and challenge the assumptions behind any
previous life cycle cost analysis (and constituent analyses) to evaluate their continued validity and/or applicability
early in the process.
Application to Product Systems

Product life extension requires an analysis of the LCC associated with continued use of the existing product versus
the cost of a replacement product. In the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, Chapter 3.3 points out that the
support stage includes service life extension (2012). Chapter 7 provides a framework to determine if a product’s life
should be extended (INCOSE 2012). In Systems Engineering and Analysis, Chapter 17 provides an LCC
methodology and emphasizes the analysis of different alternatives before deciding on product life extension
(Blanchard and Fabrycky 2011).
For military systems, service life extension is considered a subset of modification or modernization. Military systems
use well-developed and detailed guidance for SLE programs (SLEP). The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OSD AT&L) provides an online reference for policies, procedures,
planning guidance, and whitepapers for military product service life extension (DAU 2011). Continuous military
system modernization is a process by which state-of-the-art technologies are inserted continuously into weapon
systems to increase reliability, lower sustainment costs, and increase the war fighting capability of a military system
to meet evolving customer requirements throughout an indefinite service life.
Aircraft service life can be extended by reducing the dynamic loads which lead to structural fatigue. The Boeing
B-52 military aircraft and the Boeing 737 commercial aircraft are prime examples of system life extension. The B-52
was first fielded in 1955 and the Boeing 737 has been fielded since 1967; both aircraft are still in use today.
For nuclear reactors, system safety is the most important precondition for service life extension. System safety must
be maintained while extending the service life (Paks 2010). Built-in tests, automated fault reporting and prognostics,
analysis of failure modes, and the detection of early signs of wear and aging may be applied to predict the time when
maintenance actions will be required to extend the service life of the product. (For additional discussion, see Safety
Engineering.)
Application to Service Systems

For systems that provide services to a larger consumer base, SLE involves continued delivery of the service without
disrupting consumer use. This involves capital investment and financial planning, as well as a phased deployment of
changes. Examples of these concepts can be seen in transportation systems, water treatment facilities, energy
generation and delivery systems, and the health care industry. As new technologies are introduced, service delivery
can be improved while reducing LCC's. Service systems must continuously assess delivery costs based upon the use
of newer technologies.
Water handling systems provide a good example of a service system that undergoes life extension. Water handling
systems have been in existence since early civilization. Since water handling systems are in use as long as a site is
occupied (e.g., the Roman aqueducts) and upgrades are required as the population expands, such systems are a good
example of "systems that live forever." For example, there are still U.S. water systems that use a few wooden pipes
since there has been no reason to replace them. Water system life extension must deal with the issue of water quality
and the capacity for future users (Mays 2000). Water quality requirements can be further understood from the
AWWA Manuals of Water Supply Practices (AWWA 2010).
Application to Enterprises
SLE of a large enterprise, such as the National Astronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) national space
transportation system, involves SLE on the elements of the enterprise, such as the space vehicle (shuttle), ground
processing systems for launch operations and mission control, and space-based communication systems that support
space vehicle tracking and status monitoring. SLE of an enterprise requires a holistic look across the entire
enterprise. A balanced approach is required to address the cost of operating older system components versus the cost
required to implement service life improvements.
Large enterprise systems, such as oil and natural gas reservoirs which span broad geographical areas, can use
advanced technology to increase their service life. The economic extraction of oil and natural gas resources from
previously established reservoirs can extend their system life. One such life extension method is to pump special
liquids or gases into the reservoir to push the remaining oil or natural gas to the surface for extraction (Office of
Natural Gas & Oil Technology 1999).
Other Topics
Commercial product developers have been required to retain information for extended periods of time after the last
operational product or unit leaves active service (for up to twenty years). Regulatory requirements should be
considered when extending service life (INCOSE 2012).
The cost associated with life extension is one of the main inputs in the decision to extend service life of a product or
a service. The cost of SLE must be compared to the cost of developing and deploying a new system, as well as the
functional utility the user will obtain from each of the alternatives. It is often the case that the funding required for
SLE of large complex systems is spread over several fiscal planning cycles and is therefore subject to changes in
attitude by the elected officials that appropriate the funding.
The challenges with upgrading a system while it is still being used, which is often the case with SLE, must be
understood and planned to avoid serious disruptions to the services the systems provide.
Any SLE must also consider the obsolescence of the systems parts, (e.g., software, amount of system redesign that is
required to eliminate the obsolete parts, etc.).
References
Works Cited
AWWA. 2010. “AWWA Manuals of Water Supply Practices.” In American Water Works Association (AWWA).
Denver, CO. Accessed August 5, 2010. Available at: http:/ / www. awwa. org/ Resources/ standards.
cfm?ItemNumber=47829&navItemNumber=47834.
Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement.” Journal of ASTM International (JAI), 3(2): 13.
DAU. 2010. “Acquisition community connection (ACC): Where the DoD AT&L workforce meets to share
knowledge.” In Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/US Department of Defense (DoD). Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA,
accessed August 5, 2010. https://acc.dau.mil/.
Elliot, T., K. Chen, and R.C. Swanekamp. 1998. "Section 6.5" in Standard Handbook of Powerplant Engineering.
New York, NY, USA: McGraw Hill.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Practices.” McClellan, CA: Defense MicroElectronics Activity (DMEA)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
Mays, L. (ed). 2000. "Chapter 3" in Water Distribution Systems Handbook. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Ltd. Hungary, accessed August 5, 2010. Available at: http://paksnuclearpowerplant.com/service-life-extension.
SEI. 2010. “Software Engineering Institute.” In Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie-Mellon University
(CMU). Pittsburgh, PA, accessed August 5, 2010. http://www.sei.cmu.edu.
Primary References
1.1. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Research and Innovation
and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), SEG for ITS 1.1.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
AWWA. 2010. “AWWA Manuals of Water Supply Practices.” In American Water Works Association (AWWA).
Denver, CO, USA. Accessed August 5, 2010. Available at: http:/ / www. awwa. org/ Resources/ standards.
cfm?ItemNumber=47829&navItemNumber=47834.
Blanchard, B.S. 2010. Logistics engineering and management, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall,
341-342.
Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement.” Journal of ASTM International (JAI), 3(2): 13.
Caltrans and USDOT. 2005. Systems engineering guidebook for ITS, version 1.1. Sacramento, CA, USA: California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Research & Innovation/U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT), SEG for ITS 1.1: 278, 101-103, 107.
Casetta, E. 2001. Transportation Systems Engineering: Theory and methods. New York, NY, USA: Kluwer
Publishers Academic, Springer.
mil.
FAA. 2006. "Section 4.1" in “Systems Engineering Manual.” Washington, DC, USA: US Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
FCC. 2009. “Radio and Television Broadcast Rules.” Washington, DC, USA: US Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), 47 CFR Part 73, FCC Rule 09-19: 11299-11318.
Gehring, G., D. Lindemuth, and W.T. Young. 2004. “Break Reduction/Life extension Program for CAST and
Ductile Iron Water Mains.” Paper presented at NO-DIG 2004, Conference of the North American Society for
Trenchless Technology (NASTT), March 22-24, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Hovinga, M.N. and G.J. Nakoneczny. 2000. “Standard Recommendations for Pressure Part Inspection during a
Boiler Life Extension Program.” Paper presented at ICOLM (International Conference on Life Management and Life
Extension of Power Plant), May, Xi’an, P.R. China.
IEEE. 2010. IEEE Standard Framework for Reliability Prediction of Hardware. New York, NY, USA: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE STD 1413.
IEEE. 1998. IEEE Standard Reliability Program for the Development and Production of Electronic Systems and
Equipment. New York, NY, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE STD 1332.
IEEE. 2008. IEEE Recommended practice on Software Reliability. New York, NY, USA: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE STD 1633.
IEEE 2005. IEEE Standard for Software Configuration Management Plans. New York, NY, USA: Institute of
& Design. 15(4): 225-33.
Institute of Engineers Singapore. 2009. “Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge, provisional,” version 2.0.
Singapore.
ISO/IEC. 2003. “Industrial Automation Systems Integration-Integration of Life-Cycle Data for Process Plants
including Oil, Gas Production Facilities.” Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization
(ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
ISO/IEC. 1997. “Systems Engineering for Commercial Aircraft.” Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Koopman, P. 1999. “Life Cycle Considerations.” In Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU). Pittsburgh, PA, USA,
accessed August 5, 2010. Available at: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/des_s99/life_cycle/index.html.
L3 Communications. 2010. “Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).” Newport News, VA, USA: L3
Communications, Flight International Aviation LLC.
Practices.” McClellan, CA: Defense MicroElectronics Activity (DMEA)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
Book Company.
MDIT. 2008. System Maintenance Guidebook (SMG), version 1.1: A companion to the systems engineering
methodology (SEM) of the state unified information technology environment (SUITE). MI, USA: Michigan
Department of Information Technology (MDIT), DOE G 200: 38.
D.C., USA: Air Traffic Organization (ATO)/U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NAS SEM 3.1.
Ltd. Hungary, accessed August 5, 2010. Available at: http://paksnuclearpowerplant.com/service-life-extension.
Reason, J. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accident. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
SAE International. 2010. “Standards: Automotive--Maintenance and Aftermarket.” Warrendale, PA: Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) International.
Schafer, D.L. 2003. “Keeping Pace With Technology Advances When Funding Resources Are Diminished.” Paper
presented at Auto Test Con. IEEE Systems Readiness Technology Conference, Anaheim, CA, USA: 584.
(CMU). Pittsburgh, PA, accessed August 5, 2010. http://www.sei.cmu.edu.
SOLE. 2009. “Applications Divisons.” In The International Society of Logistics (SOLE). Hyattsville, MD, USA,
accessed August 5, 2010. http://www.sole.org/appdiv.asp.
Sukamto, S. 2003. “Plant Aging and Life Extension Program at Arun LNG Plant Lhokseumawe, North Aceh,
Indonesia.” Paper presented at 22nd Annual World Gas Conference, June 1-5, Tokyo, Japan.

Capability Updates, Upgrades, and

Modernization
Lead Authors: William Stiffler, Contributing Author: Brian Wells
Modernization and upgrades involve changing the product or service to include new functions and interfaces,
improve system performance, and/or improve system supportability. The logistic support of a product or service
reaches a point in its life where system modernization is required to resolve supportability problems and to reduce
operational costs. The INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE 2012) and Systems Engineering and
Analysis (Blanchard and Fabrycky 2005) both stress the importance of using life cycle costs (LCC) when
determining if a product or service should be modernized. Systems can be modernized in the field or returned to a
depot or factory for modification.
Design for system modernization and upgrade is an important part of the system engineering process and should be
considered as part of the early requirements and design activities. Engineering change proposals (ECPs) are used to
initiate updates and modifications to the original system. Product and service upgrades can include new technology
insertion, removing old equipment, or adding new equipment. Form, fit, function, and interface (F3I) is an important
principle for upgrades where backward compatibility is a requirement.
Topic Overview
Product and service modernization involves the same systems engineering (SE) processes and principles that are
employed during the upfront design, development, integration, and testing. The primary differences between product
and service modernization are the various constraints imposed by the existing system architecture, design, and
components. Modernizing a legacy system requires a detailed understanding of the product or service prior to
making any changes. The constraints and the existence of design and test artifacts make it necessary for the systems
engineers performing modernization to tailor the traditional development processes to fit the situation.
Product and service modernization occurs for many reasons, including the following:
1. The system or one of its subsystems is experiencing reduced performance, safety, or reliability.
2. A customer or other stakeholder desires a new capability for the system.
3. Some system components may be experiencing obsolescence, including the lack of spare parts.
4. New uses for the system require modification to add capabilities not built into the originally deployed system.
The first three reasons above are discussed in more detail in Applying Systems Engineering to In-Service Systems:
Supplementary Guidance to the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook. (INCOSE UK Chapter 2010).
The UK chapter of the INCOSE developed Applying Systems Engineering to In-Service Systems: Supplementary
Guidance to the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE UK Chapter 2010). This guidance document
applies to any system for which multiple systems are produced. These systems may be buildings, transmission
networks, aircraft, automobiles or military vehicles, trains, naval vessels, and mass transit systems.
Government and military products provide a comprehensive body of knowledge for system modernization and
updates. Key references have been developed by the defense industry and can be particular to their needs.
Key factors and questions that must be considered by the systems engineer when making modifications and upgrades
to a product or service include:
• type of system (space, air, ground, maritime, and safety critical)
• missions and scenarios of expected operational usage
• policy and legal requirements that are imposed by certain agencies or business markets
• product or service LCCs
• electromagnetic spectrum usage expected, including change in RF emissions
• system original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and key suppliers, and availability of parts and subsystems
• understanding and documenting the functions, interfaces, and performance requirements, including environmental
testing and validation
• system integration challenges posed by the prevalence of system-of-systems solutions and corresponding
interoperability issues between legacy, modified, and new systems
• amount of regression testing to be performed on the existing software
Key processes and procedures that should be considered during product and service modernization include:
• legislative policy adherence review and certification
• safety critical review
• engineering change management and configuration control
• analysis of alternatives
• warranty and product return process implementation
• availability of manufacturing and supplier sources and products

Product modernization involves understanding and managing a list of product deficiencies, prioritizing change
requests, and handling customer issues associated with product usage. The INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook
emphasizes the use of Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) to understand the root causes of
product failures and provide the basis for making any product changes.
Product modernization uses the engineering change management principle of change control boards to review and
implement product changes and improvements. The U.S. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (OUSD AT&L) provides an online reference for product modernization and the use of an
ECP to document planned product or service modernization efforts.
Product modernization and upgrades require the use of system documentation. A key part of the product change
process is to change the supporting system documentation functions, interfaces, modes, performance requirements,
and limitations. Both INCOSE (2012) and Blanchard and Fabrycky (2005) stress the importance of understanding
the intended usage of the product or service documented in the form of a concept of operations.
If system documentation is not available, reverse engineering is required to capture the proper “as is configuration”
of the system and to gain understanding of system behavior prior to making any changes. Seacord, Plakosh, and
Lewis's Modernizing Legacy Systems (2003) explains the importance of documenting the existing architecture of a
system, including documenting the software architecture prior to making any changes. Chapter 5 of Seacord,
Plakosh, and Lewis provides a framework for understanding and documenting a legacy system (2003). The authors
point out that the product or service software will undergo a transformation during modernization and upgrades.
Chapter 5 introduces a horseshoe model that includes functional transformation, code transformation, and
architecture transformation (Seacord, Plakosh, and Lewis 2005).
During system verification and validation (after product change), it is important to perform regression testing on the
portions of the system that were not modified to confirm that upgrades did not impact the existing functions and
behaviors of the system. The degree and amount of regression testing depends on the type of change made to the
system and whether the upgrade includes any changes to those functions or interfaces involved with system safety.
INCOSE (2012) recommends the use of a requirements verification traceability matrix to assist the systems engineer
during regression testing.
It is important to consider changes to the system support environment. Change may require modification or additions
to the system test equipment and other support elements such as packaging and transportation.
Some commercial products contain components and subsystems where modernization activities cannot be
performed. An example of these types of commercial systems can be seen by looking at consumer electronics, such
as radios and computer components. The purchase price of these commercial systems is low enough that upgrades
are not economical and are considered cost prohibitive.

Service system modernization may require regulatory changes to allow the use of new technologies and new
materials. Service system modernization requires backward compatibility to previous provided service capability
during the period of change. Service system modernization also generally spans large geographical areas, requiring a
phase-based change and implementation strategy. Transportation systems, such as highways, provide service to
many different types of consumers and span large geographical areas. Modernization of transportation systems often
requires reverse engineering prior to making changes to understand how traffic monitoring devices such as metering,
cameras, and toll tags interface with the rest of the system. The California Department of Transportation's (CDOT's)
Systems Engineering Guidebook for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) (2005) adds reverse engineering to the
process steps for system upgrade. In addition, this reference points out the need to maintain system integrity and
defines integrity to include the accurate documentation of the system's functional, performance, and physical
requirements in the form of requirements, design, and support specifications.
Software modernization is discussed in the Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK)
(Bourque and Fairley, 2014).
Enterprise system modernization must consider the location of the modification and the conditions under which the
work will be performed. The largest challenge is implementing the changes while the system remains operational. In
these cases, disruption of ongoing operations is a serious risk. For some systems, the transition between the old and
new configuration is particularly important and must be carefully planned.
Enterprise system modernization may require coordination of changes across international boundaries. Enterprise
modifications normally occur at a lower level of the system hierarchy. Change in requirements at the system level
would normally constitute a new system or a new model of a system.
The INCOSE UK Chapter Supplementary Guidance (2010) discusses the change to the architecture of the system. In
cases where a component is added or changed, this change will constitute a change to the architecture. As an
example, the global positioning system (GPS) is an enterprise system implemented by the United States military but
used by both commercial and government consumers worldwide. Modernization may involve changes to only a
certain segment of the enterprise, such as the ground user segment to reduce size, weight, and power. Modernization
may only occur in certain geographical areas of operation. For example, the air transportation system consists of
multiple countries and governing bodies dispersed over the entire world. Changes can occur locally or can require
coordination and integration world-wide.
Other Topics
The Vee Model for Modifications

Figure 1 below illustrates how the standard Vee model would be applied to a system modification. This Vee model is
for the entire system; the key point is that if a modification is being initiated at a lower level of the system hierarchy,
the Vee model must be entered at that level as shown in the figure. The figure shows three entry points to the Vee
model. As the INCOSE UK Chapter Supplementary Guidance (2010) points out, the Vee model may be entered
multiple times during the life of the system.
Figure 1. The Vee Model for Modifications at the Three Different Levels. (SEBoK Original)
A change to the system that does not change the system capabilities but does change the requirements and design of
a subsystem that may be introduced into the process at point B on the Vee model (see Figure 1). Changes of this type
could provide a new subsystem, such as a computer system, that meets the system-level requirements but has
differences from the original, which necessitates modifications to the lower-level requirements and design, such as
changing disk memory to solid state memory. The process for implementing changes starting at this point has been
described by Nguyen (2006). Modification introduced at points B or C (in Figure 1) necessitate flowing the
requirements upward through their “parent” requirements to the system-level requirements.
There are many cases where the change to a system needs to be introduced at the lowest levels of the architectural
hierarchy; here, the entry point to the process is at point C on the Vee model. These cases are typically related to
obsolete parts caused by changes in technology or due to reliability issues with subsystems and parts chosen for the
original design. A change at this level should be F3I compatible so that none of the higher-level requirements are
affected. The systems engineer must ensure there is no impact at the higher levels; when this does occur, it must be
immediately identified and worked out with the customer and the other stakeholders.
In “Life extension of Civil Infrastructural works - a systems engineering approach” van der Laan (2008) provides a
maintenance process that interacts with the system engineering process, represented by the Vee model. His life
extension (or modernization) process model includes reverse engineering to obtain the system definition necessary
for the modernization process. Consideration of the total lifecycle of the system will result in the capture of all of the
records necessary for later upgrade; however, for many reasons, the systems engineer will find that the necessary
information has not been captured or maintained.
As pointed out by the INCOSE UK Chapter Supplementary Guidance (2010) there may be multiple modifications to
a system in its lifetime. Often these modifications occur concurrently. This situation requires special attention and
there are two methods for managing it. The first is called the “block” method. This means that a group of systems are
in the process of being modified simultaneously and will be deployed together as a group at a specific time. This
method is meant to ensure that at the end state, all the modifications have been coordinated and integrated so there
are no conflicts and no non-compliance issues with the system-level requirements. The second method is called
continuous integration and is meant to occur concurrently with the block method. Information management systems
provide an example of a commercial system where multiple changes can occur concurrently. The information
management system hardware and network modernization will cause the system software to undergo changes.
Software release management is used to coordinate the proper timing for the distribution of system software changes
to end-users (Michigan Department of Information Technology, 2008).
Application of Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Components

Currently, a prominent consideration is the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components. The application of
COTS subsystems, components, and technologies to system life management provides a combination of advantages
and risks. The first advantage is the inherent technological advancements that come with COTS components. COTS
components continue to evolve toward a higher degree of functional integration. They provide increased
functionality, while shrinking in physical size. The other advantage to using COTS components is that they typically
have a lower cost.
The risks associated with using COTS during system life management involve component obsolescence and changes
to system interfaces. Commercial market forces drive some components to obsolescence within two years or less.
Application of COTS requires careful consideration to form factor and interface (physical and electrical).
References
Works Cited
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Diego, CA, USA.
OUSD(AT&L). 2012. “On-line policies, procedures, and planning references.” Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Transportation and Logistics, US Department of Defense (DoD). Accessed on August 30,
2012. Available at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/
van der Laan, J. 2008. “Life extension of Civil Infrastructural works - a systems engineering approach.” Proceedings
of the 18th annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering, Utrecht, the
Netherlands.
Primary References
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE 1413.
IEEE. 1998. IEEE Standard Reliability Program for the Development and Production of Electronic Systems and
Equipment. New York, NY, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE 1332.
IEEE. 2008. IEEE Recommended practice on Software Reliability. New York, NY, USA: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE 1633.
IEEE. 2005. IEEE Standard for Software Configuration Management Plans. New York, NY, USA: Institute of
INCOSE. 2010. “In-service systems working group.” San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE).
Singapore.
ISO/IEC. 2003. “Industrial Automation Systems Integration-Integration of Life-Cycle Data for Process Plants
including Oil, Gas Production Facilities.” Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization
(ISO)/International Electro technical Commission (IEC).
Jackson, S. 2007. “A Multidisciplinary Framework for Resilience to Disasters and Disruptions.” Journal of Design
and Process Science. 11(2): 91-108, 110.
Jackson, S. 1997. Systems Engineering for Commercial Aircraft. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Koopman, P. 1999. “Life Cycle Considerations.” In Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU). Pittsburgh, PA, USA,
accessed August 5, 2010. Available at: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/des_s99/life_cycle/index.html.
Practices.” McClellan, CA, USA: Defense MicroElectronics Activity (DMEA)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
Book Company.
methdology (SEM) of the state unified information technology environment (SUITE). MI, USA: Michigan
Diego, CA, USA.
Reason, J. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accident. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Transpofration (NDDOT).
SAE International. 2010. “Standards: Automotive--Maintenance and Aftermarket.” Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of
(CMU). Pittsburgh, PA, USA, accessed August 5, 2010. http://www.sei.cmu.edu.

System Disposal and Retirement

Lead Author: Brian Wells
Product or service disposal and retirement is an important part of system life management. At some point, any
deployed system will become one of the following: uneconomical to maintain; obsolete; or unrepairable. A
comprehensive systems engineering process includes an anticipated equipment phase-out period and takes disposal
into account in the design and life cycle cost assessment. (See other knowledge areas in Part 3 for discussion on life
cycle metrics and assessment.)
A public focus on sustaining a clean environment encourages contemporary systems engineering (SE) design to
consider recycling, reuse, and responsible disposal techniques. (See Systems Engineering and Environmental
Engineering for additional discussion.)
Topic Overview
According to the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook (2012), “The purpose of the disposal process is to remove
a system element from the operation environment with the intent of permanently terminating its use; and to deal with
any hazardous or toxic materials or waste products in accordance with the applicable guidance, policy, regulation,
and statutes." In addition to technological and economical factors, the system-of-interest (SoI) must be compatible,
acceptable, and ultimately address the design of a system for the environment in terms of ecological, political, and
social considerations.
Ecological considerations associated with system disposal or retirement are of prime importance. The most
concerning problems associated with waste management include:
• Air Pollution and Control,
• Water Pollution and Control,
• Noise Pollution and Control,
• Radiation, and
• Solid Waste.
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) govern disposal and retirement of commercial systems. Similar organizations perform this function in other
countries. OSHA addresses hazardous materials under the 1910-119A List of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, Toxics,
and Reactives (OSHA 2010). System disposal and retirement spans both commercial and government developed
products and services. While both the commercial and government sectors have common goals, methods differ
during the disposition of materials associated with military systems.
US DoD Directive 4160.21-M, Defense Material Disposition Manual (1997) outlines the requirements of the Federal
Property Management Regulation (FPMR) and other laws and regulations as appropriate regarding the disposition of
excess, surplus, and foreign excess personal property (FEPP). Military system disposal activities must be compliant
with EPA and OSHA requirements.

Product system retirement may include system disposal activities or preservation activities (e.g., mothballing) if
there is a chance the system may be called upon for use at a later time.
Systems Engineering and Analysis has several chapters that discuss the topics of design for goals such as “green
engineering,” reliability, maintainability, logistics, supportability, producibility, disposability, and sustainability.
Chapter 16 provides a succinct discussion of green engineering considerations and ecology-based manufacturing.
Chapter 17 discusses life cycle costing and the inclusion of system disposal and retirement costs (Blanchard and
Fabrycky 2011).
Some disposal of a system's components occurs during the system’s operational life. This happens when the
components fail and are replaced. As a result, the tasks and resources needed to remove them from the system need
to be planned well before a demand for disposal exists.
Transportation of failed items, handling equipment, special training requirements for personnel, facilities, technical
procedures, technical documentation updates, hazardous material (HAZMAT) remediation, all associated costs, and
reclamation or salvage value for precious metals and recyclable components are important considerations during
system planning. Phase-out and disposal planning addresses when disposal should take place, the economic
feasibility of the disposal methods used, and what the effects on the inventory and support infrastructure, safety,
environmental requirements, and impact to the environment will be (Blanchard 2010).
Disposal is the least efficient and least desirable alternative for the processing of waste material (Finlayson and
Herdlick 2008).
The EPA collects information regarding the generation, management and final disposition of hazardous wastes
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). EPA waste management regulations
are codified at 40 C.F.R., parts 239-282. Regulations regarding management of hazardous wastes begin at 40 C.F.R.
part 260. Most states have enacted laws and promulgated regulations that are at least as stringent as federal
regulations.
Due to the extensive tracking of the life of hazardous waste, the overall process has become known as the
"cradle-to-grave system". Stringent bookkeeping and reporting requirements have been levied on generators,
transporters, and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that handle hazardous waste.
Unfortunately, disposability has a lower priority compared to other activities associated with product development.
This is due to the fact that typically, the disposal process is viewed as an external activity to the entity that is in
custody of the system at the time. Reasons behind this view include:
• There is no direct revenue associated with the disposal process and the majority of the cost associated with the
disposal process is initially hidden.
• Typically, someone outside of SE performs the disposal activities. For example, neither a car manufacturer nor
the car's first buyer may be concerned about a car's disposal since the car will usually be sold before disposal.
The European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation
requires manufacturers and importers of chemicals and products to register and disclose substances in products when
specific thresholds and criteria are met (European Parliament 2007). The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
manages REACH processes. Numerous substances will be added to the list of substances already restricted under
European legislation; a new regulation emerged when the Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) in electrical
and electronic equipment was adopted in 2003.
Requirements for substance use and availability are changing across the globe. Identifying the use of materials in the
supply chain that may face restriction is an important part of system life management. System disposal and
retirement requires upfront planning and the development of a disposal plan to manage the activities. An important
consideration during system retirement is the proper planning required to update the facilities needed to support the
system during retirement, as explained in the California Department of Transportation Systems Engineering
Guidebook (2005).
Disposal needs to account for environmental and personal risks associated with the decommissioning of a system
and all hazardous materials involved. The decommissioning of a nuclear power plant is a prime example of
hazardous material control and exemplifies the need for properly handling and transporting residual materials
resulting from the retirement of certain systems.
The US Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is the lead military agency responsible for providing guidance for
worldwide reuse, recycling, and disposal of military products. A critical responsibility of the military services and
defense agencies is demilitarization prior to disposal.

An important consideration during service system retirement or disposal is the proper continuation of services for the
consumers of the system. As an existing service system is decommissioned, a plan should be adopted to bring new
systems online that operate in parallel with the existing system so that service interruption is kept to a minimum.
This parallel operation needs to be carefully scheduled and can occur over a significant period of time.
Examples of parallel operation include phasing in new Air Traffic Control (ATC) systems (FAA 2006), the
migration from analog television to new digital television modulation (FCC 2009), the transition to Internet protocol
version 6 (IPv6), maintaining water handling systems, and maintaining large commercial transportation systems,
such as rail and shipping vessels.
The Systems Engineering Guidebook for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) provides planning guidance for the
retirement and replacement of large transportation systems. Chapter 4.7 identifies several factors which can shorten
the useful life of a transportation system and lead to early retirement, such as the lack of proper documentation, the
lack of effective configuration management processes, and the lack of an adequate operations and maintenance
budget (Caltrans, and USDOT 2005).
The disposal and retirement of large enterprise systems requires a phased approach, with capital planning being
implemented in stages. As in the case of service systems, an enterprise system's disposal and retirement require
parallel operation of the replacement system along with the existing (older) system to prevent loss of functionality
for the user.
Other Topics
See the OSHA standard (1996) and EPA (2010) website for references that provide listings of hazardous materials.
See the DLA Disposal Services website [1] for disposal services sites and additional information on hazardous
materials.
A prime objective of systems engineering is to design a product or service such that its components can be recycled
after the system has been retired. The recycling process should not cause any detrimental effects to the environment.
One of the latest movements in the industry is green engineering. According to the EPA, green engineering is the
design, commercialization, and use of processes and products that are technically and economically feasible while
minimizing:
• the generation of pollutants at the source; and
• the risks to human health and the environment.
See Environmental Engineering for additional information.
References
Works Cited
Blanchard, B. S. 2010. Logistics Engineering and Management, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall,
341-342.
DoD. 1997. Defense Materiel Disposition Manual. Arlington, VA, USA: US Department of Defense, DoD 4160.21
-M.
mil.
ECHA. 2010. “European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).” In European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Helsinki, Finland.
Available at: http://echa.europa.edu/home_en.asp.
EPA. 2010. “Wastes In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)." Washington, D.C., USA. Available at: http:/
/www.epa.gov/epawaste/index.htm.
European Parliament. 2007. Regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European parliament and of the council of 18
December 2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH),
establishing a European chemicals agency, amending directive 1999/45/EC and repealing council regulation (EEC)
no 793/93 and commission regulation (EC) no 1488/94 as well as council directive 76/769/EEC and commission
directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Official Journal of the European Union 29 (5):
136/3,136/280.
OSHA. 1996. “Hazardous Materials: Appendix A: List of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, Toxics and Reactives.”
Washington, DC, USA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)/U.S. Department of Labor (DoL),
1910.119(a).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976)
Primary References
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Jackson, S. 2007. “A Multidisciplinary Framework for Resilience to Disasters and Disruptions.” Journal of
Integrated Design and Process Science. 11(2).
Blanchard, B. S. 2010. Logistics Engineering and Management, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall,
341-342.
mil.
ECHA. 2010. “European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).” In European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Helsinki, Finland.
Available at: http://echa.europa.edu/home_en.asp.
EPA. 2010. “Wastes In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)." Washington, D.C., USA. Available at: http:/
/www.epa.gov/epawaste/index.htm.
European Parliament. 2007. Regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European parliament and of the council of 18
December 2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH),
establishing a European chemicals agency, amending directive 1999/45/EC and repealing council regulation (EEC)
no 793/93 and commission regulation (EC) no 1488/94 as well as council directive 76/769/EEC and commission
directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Official Journal of the European Union 29 (5):
136/3,136/280.
FSA. 2010. “Template for 'System Retirement Plan' and 'System Disposal Plan'.” In Federal Student Aid (FSA)/U.S.
Department of Education (DoEd). Washington, DC, USA. Accessed August 5, 2010. Available at: http:/ /
federalstudentaid.ed.gov/business/lcm.html.
IEEE 2005. IEEE Standard for Software Configuration Management Plans. New York, NY, USA: Institute of
& Design. 15(4): 225-33.
INCOSE. 2010. “In-service systems working group.” San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE).
Singapore: Institute of Engineers Singapore.
Book Company.
Minneapolis-St. Paul Chapter of SOLE. 2003. "Systems Engineering in Systems Deployment and Retirement,
presented to INCOSE." Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, USA: International Society of Logistics (SOLE), Minneapolis-St.
Paul Chapter.
OSHA. 1996. “Hazardous Materials: Appendix A: List of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, Toxics and Reactives.”
Washington, DC, USA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)/U.S. Department of Labor (DoL),
1910.119(a).
SAE International. 2010. “Standards: Automotive--Maintenance and Aftermarket.” Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of

References
[1] http:/ / www. dtc. dla. mil
556

Standards
Systems Engineering Standards

Lead Authors: Garry Roedler, Chuck Calvano
This knowledge area (KA) focuses on the standards and technical protocols that are relevant to systems engineering.
It looks at the types of standards, some of the key standards, and the alignment efforts to achieve a consistent set of
standards. It then compares some of the standards and surveys their applications. Note that many of these standards
have been used as references throughout Part 3.
Topics
Each part of the SEBoK is divided into KA's, which are groupings of information with a related theme. The KA's, in
• Relevant Standards
• Alignment and Comparison of the Standards
• Application of Systems Engineering Standards
References
None.

Relevant Standards
Lead Authors: Garry Roedler, Ken Zemrowski, Chuck Calvano, Contributing Author: Sanford Friedenthal
There are a multitude of standards across a number of standards development organizations (SDOs) that are related
to systems engineering and systems domains. This topic examines the types of standards and provides a summary of
the relevant standards for systems engineering (SE).
Standards Taxonomies and Types of Standards

There are many types of standards that focus on different aspects of SE. Thus, it can be helpful to have a taxonomy
that classifies the types of standards and the objective of each type. Table 1 provides the types of the current
standards and a description of the types. Refer to the Modeling Standards for a list of relevant system modeling
standards.
Table 1. Types of Systems Engineering Standards. (SEBoK Original)

Standard Type Description of Type
Concepts and Terminology • Defines the terminology and describes the concepts of a specific domain.
Process • Elaborates a specific process, giving normative requirements for the essential elements of the process. It may
give guidance to the requirements.
Requirements • Describes the requirements for something.

• Most often used for actions, activities, or practices and not objects (see specifications).
Procedure (Practice, Activity) • A specific procedure. Instructions or requirements on how to do something.

• Sometimes a description of best practices.
• Sometimes guidance and sometimes normative.
Guidance • Usually an interpretation and guidance of a published standard.
Management System • Requirements for management.
Specification • Specifies the form, attributes, or properties of a subject artifact.

• Usually an object and usually normative.
Reference Model • A reference model or collection of specifications of which a reference model is composed.
Process Reference Model • A collection of processes necessary and sufficient to achieve a nominated business outcome.
(PRM)
Process Assessment Model • Requirements and guidance for assessing attributes of nominated processes or attributes of a nominated
(PAM) collection of processes.
Guide to Body of Knowledge • Collection and description of the current body of knowledge in a domain, or a guide to the body of knowledge.
(BOK)
Systems Engineering Related Standards
Summary of Systems Engineering Related Standards

Table 2 contains a summary of SE related standards. This table does not include all SE related standards, as there are
many are focused on a specific domain, sector, or user group (e.g., it does not include standards from a specific
government agenda). The table does include standards that are considered to be widely applicable to systems
engineering and systems life cycle management system life cycle processes, such as ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015).
Where available, there is a link to the official abstract for the standard.
Table 2. Summary of Systems Engineering Standards. (SEBoK Original)

Document ID Document Title Organization
[1] Systems and Software Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes ISO/IEC/IEEE
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288
[2] Systems and Software Engineering - Systems and Software Engineering Vocabulary ISO/IEC/IEEE
ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765
[3] Systems and Software Engineering - Architecture Description ISO/IEC/IEEE

ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010
[4]
/ IEEE 1220 Management of the Systems Engineering Process ISO/IEC/IEEE
ISO/IEC 26702
[5]
[6] Systems and Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering ISO/IEC/IEEE

ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148
[7] Systems and Software Engineering - Risk Management ISO/IEC/IEEE

ISO/IEC/IEEE 16085
[8] Systems and Software Engineering - Measurement Process ISO/IEC/IEEE

ISO/IEC/IEEE 15939
[9] Systems and Software Engineering - Project Management ISO/IEC/IEEE

ISO/IEC/IEEE 16326
[10] Programme management - Guide for the management of Systems Engineering CEN
prEN9277
[11] Engineering of a System TechAmerica

EIA 632
[12] Quality Management Systems - Requirements ISO TC 176

ISO 9001:2008
[13] National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management TechAmerica

EIA-649-B
[14] Systems and Software Engineering - Guide to Life Cycle Management ISO/IEC/IEEE
ISO/IEC/IEEE TR 24748-1
[15] Systems and Software Engineering - Guide To The Application of ISO/IEC 15288:2008 ISO/IEC/IEEE
ISO/IEC/IEEE TR 24748-2
Systems and Software Engineering - Application and management of the systems ISO/IEC/IEEE
ISO/IEC/IEEE CD 24748-4
[16] engineering process
[17] Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE) ISO/IEC/INCOSE

ISO/IEC DTR 16337
[18] Systems and Software Engineering - Content of Life-Cycle Information Products ISO/IEC/IEEE
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289:2011
(Documentation)
Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Assurance – Part 1: Concepts ISO/IEC/IEEE
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15026-1:2010
[19] And Vocabulary
Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Assurance – Part 2: Assurance ISO/IEC/IEEE
[20] Case
Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Assurance – Part 3: Integrity ISO/IEC/IEEE
[21] Levels
Systems and Software Engineering - System And Software Assurance – Part 4: Assurance ISO/IEC/IEEE JTC
[22] in the Life Cycle 1
[23] Guidelines for the Application of ISO 9001 to Systems Life Cycle Processes ISO/IEC JTC 1
ISO/IEC TR 90005:2008
[24] Systems Engineering Data Interchange Standard ISO TC 184

ISO 10303-233:2012
[25] Systems Engineering General Requirements ECSS

ECSS-E-ST-10C
[26] Space Engineering - Verification {Note - standard is canceled} ECSS

ECSS-E-ST-10-02
[27] Space Engineering - Technical Requirements Specification ECSS

ECSS-E-ST-10-06
[28] Space Engineering - Interface Control ECSS

ECSS-E-ST-10-24
[29] Space Project Management - Project Planning and Implementation ECSS

ECSS-M-ST-10
[30] Space Project Management - Configuration and Information Management ECSS

ECSS-M-ST-40
[31] Space Project Management - Risk Management ECSS

ECSS-M-00-03
[32] Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines ISO

ISO 31000:2009
[33] Risk Management - Risk Assessment Techniques ISO

ISO 31010:2009
[34] Enterprise Integration - Framework for Enterprise Modeling ISO

ISO 19439:2006
[35] Requirements for Enterprise - Reference Architectures and Methodologies ISO

ISO 15704:2000
[36] Earned Value Management System TechAmerica

EIA 748
Breadth and Level of Detail of Key Systems Engineering Related Standards

Figure 1 shows the level of detail and the coverage of the life cycle for some key standards or groups of standards.
Figure 1. Breadth and Depth of Key SE Related Standards (Adapted from Roedler 2011). Reprinted with permission of Garry Roedler. All other
Key pitfalls and good practices related to systems engineering standards are described in the next two sections.
Pitfalls
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in the selection and use of SE standards are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Pitfalls in Using Systems Engineering Standards. (SEBoK Original)

Pitfall Name Pitfall Description
Turnkey Process • Expecting the standard to fully provide your SE processes without any elaboration or tailoring.
Provision
No Need for • Expecting that the standard can be used without any functional or domain knowledge since the standard is the product
Knowledge of collective industry knowledge.
No Process Integration • Lack of integrating the standards requirements with the organization or project processes.
Good Practices
Some good practices as gathered from the references are provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Good Practices in Using Systems Engineering Standards. (SEBoK Original)

Good Practice Name Good Practice Description
Tailor for Business Needs • Tailor the standard within conformance requirements to best meet business needs.
Integration into Project • Requirements of the standard should be integrated into the project via processes or product/service requirements.
References
Works Cited
Roedler, G. 2010. "An Overview of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, System Life Cycle Processes." Proceedings of the 4th
Asian Pacific Council on Systems Engineering (APCOSE) Conference, 4-6 October 2010, Keelung, Taiwan.
Roedler, G. 2011. "Towards Integrated Systems and Software Engineering Standards." National Defense Industrial
Association (NDIA) Conference, San Diego, CA, USA.
Primary References
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Engineering Vocabulary. Geneva,
(IEC)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765: 2009.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and software engineering - Architecture description. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission/Institute of
Roedler, G. 2010. An Overview of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, System Life Cycle Processes. Proceedings of the 4th Asian
Pacific Council on Systems Engineering (APCOSE) Conference, 4-6 October 2010, Keelung, Taiwan.
(ISO), ISO 17666:2003.
ISO. 2009. Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
ISO/IEC. 2009. Risk Management - Risk Assessment Techniques. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE 16085.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. Systems and Software Engineering - Project Management. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 16326.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Assurance, Part 1: Concepts and
definitions. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 15026-1.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2010. Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Assurance, Part 2: Assurance case.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - Content of Life-Cycle Information Products
(documentation). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Assurance, Part 3: Integrity Levels.

References
[1] http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ iso_catalogue/ catalogue_tc/ catalogue_detail. htm?csnumber=43564
[3] http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ home/ store/ catalogue_ics/ catalogue_detail_ics. htm?csnumber=50508
[5] http:/ / standards. ieee. org/ findstds/ standard/ 1220-2005. html
[10] http:/ / infostore. saiglobal. com/ store/ details. aspx?ProductID=1615031
[11] http:/ / www. techstreet. com/ products/ 1145585
[12] http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ catalogue_detail?csnumber=46486
[15] http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ iso_catalogue/ catalogue_ics/ catalogue_detail_ics. htm?csnumber=54994
[16] http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ iso_catalogue/ catalogue_ics/ catalogue_detail_ics. htm?csnumber=56887
[17] http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ home/ store/ catalogue_tc/ catalogue_detail. htm?csnumber=56186
[20] http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ catalogue_detail. htm?csnumber=52926
[25] http:/ / www. inpe. br/ twiki/ pub/ Main/ GerenciamentoProjetosEspaciais/ ECSS-E-ST-10C(6March2009). pdf
[26] http:/ / www. everyspec. com/ ESA/ ECSS-E-10-02A_14991/
[27] http:/ / www. inpe. br/ twiki/ pub/ Main/ GerenciamentoProjetosEspaciais/ ECSS-E-ST-10-06C6March2009. pdf
[28] https:/ / www. google. com/ url?sa=t& rct=j& q=& esrc=s& source=web& cd=1& ved=0CCsQFjAA& url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. ecss.
nl%2Fforums%2Fecss%2Fdispatch.
cgi%2Fhome%2FshowFile%2F100807%2Fd20130924080101%2FNo%2FECSS-E-ST-10-24C_DIR1(24September2013). doc&
ei=Ji5cUrt0woLbBZ2qgOgN& usg=AFQjCNHNB_u3X71aMcFAeiiN2PAZuxGGmQ& bvm=bv. 53899372,d. b2I
[29] http:/ / www. everyspec. com/ ESA/ ECSS-M-ST-10C_REV-1_47763/
[30] http:/ / www. ecss. nl/ forums/ ecss/ dispatch. cgi/ standards/ showFile/ 100665/ d20080802121136/ No/ ECSS-M-ST-80C(31July2008). doc
[31] http:/ / www. everyspec. com/ ESA/ ecss-m-00-03a_2569/
[35] http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/ catalogue_detail. htm?csnumber=28777
Alignment and Comparison of Systems

Engineering Standards
Contributing Authors: Daniel Robbins, Rick Adcock
Over the past decade, a number of the standards development organizations (SDOs) and other industry associations
have been working collaboratively to align the systems engineering (SE) and software engineering (SwE) standards.
The objective is to have a set of standards that can easily be used concurrently within both engineering disciplines,
due to the frequent disparity between their use of common terminology and concepts.
Problem
There has been a lack of integration both within and across SDOs. This has led to SE and SwE standards that use
different terminology, process sets, process structures, levels of prescription, and audiences. These differences have
been both between systems and software, and to some extent, within each. The problem has been exacerbated, in
whole or part, by competing standards (Roedler 2010).
Cause
The cause of this problem includes several factors, as follows (Roedler 2010):
• Culture – Concepts such as “we’re different,” “not invented here,” etc.
• Organizational – Structures with different teams, committees, etc.
• Competition – Many SDOs exist.
• Domains – A focused, narrow view often doesn’t look beyond the domain for commonality.
Impact
The impact of this problem includes the following (Roedler 2010):
• Less effective or efficient processes that are not focused on leveraging commonalities. This causes redundancy
and has resulted in incompatibilities and inconsistencies between the standards making it difficult to use them
concurrently.
• Less effective solutions that are not focused on a common approach to solve a problem or need.
• Obstacles for communicating (at all levels), working in integrated teams, and leveraging resources.
• Stove-piping due to the incompatibilities and inconsistencies of and lack of leveraging commonalities.
Objective of Alignment
The objective is to make the standards more usable together by achieving the following (Roedler 2010):
• common vocabulary
• single, integrated process set
• single process structure
• jointly planned level of prescription
• suitability across multiple audiences
• inclusion of considerations in a wide range of domains and applications
Alignment of Systems Engineering Standards
Approach
A collaborative effort has been in place for the past decade that includes ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 (Information
Technology, Systems and Software Engineering), the IEEE Computer Society, the International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE), and others. A collaborative process is being used to align the standards. This process is built
around a foundational set of vocabulary, process definition conventions, and life cycle management concepts
provided in ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765 (2009) (Systems and software engineering vocabulary), ISO/IEC TR 24774 (2010)
(Guidelines for process description), and ISO/IEC/IEEE TR 24748-1 (2001) (Guide to Life Cycle Management),
respectively. At the heart of the approach is the alignment of the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015) (system life cycle
processes) and ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207 (2008) (Software life cycle processes), which provide the top level process
framework for life cycle management of systems and software. This enables concurrent and consistent use of the
standards to support both systems and software life cycle management on a single project. The approach includes the
development or revision of a set of lower level supporting standards and technical reports for elaboration of specific
processes, description of practices for specific purposes (e.g., systems/software assurance), description of artifacts,
and guidance for the application of the standards.
Past Accomplishments
Significant progress has been made towards the alignment objectives for the groups discussed above. Figure 1 shows
a May 2011 snapshot of the status of the standards that are being aligned. In addition, four of the standards shown as
“in-process” are complete, but waiting for final publication. The set of standards span ISO/IEC, IEEE, INCOSE, and
the Project Management Institute (PMI). This figure depicts the standards in one of many possible taxonomies.
Figure 1. Current Alignment/Integration Status (Adapted from Roedler 2011). Reprinted with permission of Garry Roedler. All other rights are
Current Efforts
A Life Cycle Process Harmonization Advisory Group has been evaluating the current standards for systems and
software engineering. The objective of the group is to provide a set of recommendations for further harmonization of
the industry standards. Specifically, its charter includes:
• Performing an architectural analysis and recommend a framework for an integrated set of process standards in
software and IT systems domains.
• Making recommendations regarding the future content, structure, and relationships of ISO/IEC 12207 (2008),
ISO/IEC 15288 (2015) and their guides, as well as other related SC7 documents.
To support the development of the recommendations, process modeling of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015) and
ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207 (2008) has been performed and analyzed for consistency, completeness/gaps, and
opportunities. In addition, analysis from other working groups, technical liaisons, and users of the standards has been
collected. The output of this effort will be a harmonization strategy, set of recommendations for specific standards,
and timing/sequencing recommendations (Roedler 2011).
Additionally, as the industry continues to consider harmonization needs of these standards, the collaboration has
grown to include the work of the organizations and projects shown in Figure 2. These organizations are working
towards the goal of completing a complementary and supplementary set of systems engineering resources that use
the same terminology, principles, concepts, practices, and processes and can be used concurrently without issues.
Figure 2. Growing Industry Collaboration. (SEBoK Original)
Comparison of Systems Engineering Standards

See Figure 1 located in the Relevant Standards article to see the breadth and level of detail for many of the SE
related standards. Since EIA 632 (2003) (Engineering of a System) is currently in revision, a comparison of
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015) (System life cycle processes) and EIA 632 will be deferred until the revision is
complete.
Figure 3 shows a comparison of the 3-part technical reports that provide life cycle management guidance. Part 1 is
focused on the provision of common terminology and concepts that apply to both systems and software. Part 2
provides guidance that directly supports ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015) that is specific to systems. Part 3 provides
guidance that directly supports ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207 (2008) that is specific to software (Roedler 2010).
Figure 3. Standards Alignment Results as of May 2011 (Roedler 2011). Reprinted with permission of Garry Roedler. All other rights
Key pitfalls and good practices related to systems engineering standards are described in the Relevant Standards
article.
There are also instances in which standards groups for program management, safety, or other disciplines create
standards on topics addressed within systems engineering but use different terminology, culture, etc. One such
example is risk management, which has been dealt with by many professional societies from a number of
perspectives.
Systems engineers must also be aware of the standards that govern the specialty disciplines that support systems
engineering, as discussed in Part 6.
References
Works Cited
ISO/IEC. 2010. Systems and software engineering -- Life cycle management -- Guidelines for process description.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardisation/International Electrotechnical Commissions.
ISO/IEC TR 24774:2010.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Engineering Vocabulary (SEVocab).
Commission (IEC)/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2009.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. "Part 1: Guide for life cycle management," in Systems and software engineering--life cycle
management.. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE TR
24748-1:2010.
ISO/IEEE. 2008. Systems and Software Engineering — Software Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standards (ISO)/Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer
Society, ISO/IEEE 12207:2008(E).
Roedler, G. 2010. An Overview of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, System Life Cycle Processes. Asian Pacific Council on
Systems Engineering (APCOSE) Conference.
Primary References
Roedler, G. 2010. "An Overview of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, System Life Cycle Processes." Asian Pacific Council on
Systems Engineering (APCOSE) Conference.
(ISO), ISO 17666:2003.
ISO. 2009. Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
ISO/IEC. 2009. Risk Management—Risk Assessment Techniques]]. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE 16085.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. Systems and Software Engineering - Project Management]]. Geneva, Switzerland:
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 16326.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Assurance, Part 1: Concepts and
definitions. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Engineering Vocabulary (SEVocab).
Commission (IEC)/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2009.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2010. Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Assurance, Part 2: Assurance case.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - Content of Life-Cycle Information Products
(documentation). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - System and Software Assurance, Part 3: Integrity Levels.

Application of Systems Engineering Standards

Lead Authors: Bud Lawson, Heidi Davidz, Contributing Authors: Garry Roedler
There are many systems engineering standards that have evolved over time, as indicated in Relevant Standards. In
particular, there are standards that can have an influence on organizations and their projects as indicated in Figure 1
(below). Some pitfalls and good practices in utilizing standards are also identified in the article on relevant standards.
In this article, several additional factors related to the utilization of the standards in systems engineering (SE) are
presented.
Standards and their Utilization

A standard is an agreed upon, repeatable way of doing something. It is a published document that contains a
technical specification or other precise criteria designed to be used consistently as a rule, guideline, or definition.
Standards help to make life simpler and to increase the reliability and the effectiveness of many goods and services
we use. Standards are created by bringing together the experience and expertise of all interested parties, such as the
producers, sellers, buyers, users, and regulators of a particular material, product, process, or service.
Figure 1. Potential Standards Influence of Organization and Project Processes (Adapted from Roedler 2011). Reprinted with
permission of Garry Roedler. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Standards are designed for voluntary use and do not impose any regulations. However, laws and regulations may
address certain standards and may make compliance with them compulsory.
Further, organizations and their enterprises may choose to use standards as a means of providing uniformity in their
operations and/or the products and services that they produce. The standard becomes a part of the corporate culture.
In this regard, it is interesting to note that the ISO/IEC/15288 15288 (2015) standard has provided such guidance and
has provided a strong framework for systems engineers as well as systems engineering and business management, as
forecast earlier by Arnold and Lawson (2004).
ISO directives [1] state the following:
A standard does not in itself impose any obligation upon anyone to follow it. However, such an
obligation may be imposed, for example, by legislation or by a contract. In order to be able to claim
compliance with a standard, the user (of the standard) needs to be able to identify the requirements he is
obliged to satisfy. The user needs also to be able to distinguish these requirements from other provisions
where a certain freedom of choice is possible. Clear rules for the use of verbal forms (including modal
auxiliaries) are therefore essential.
Requirements, Recommendations, and Permissions

In order to provide specificity, standards employ verb forms that convey requirements, recommendations, and
permissions. For example, the ISO directives specify the following verb usages:
• The word shall indicates requirements strictly to be followed in order to conform to the standard and from which
no deviation is permitted.
• The word should indicates that among several possibilities, one is recommended as particularly suitable without
mentioning or excluding others, or that a certain course of action is preferred, but not necessarily required, or that
(in the negative form) a certain possibility or course of action is deprecated but not prohibited.
• The word may indicates a course of action permissible within the limits of the standard.
The directive also indicates that standards should avoid the use of will, must, and other imperatives.
Certification, Conformance, and Compliance

In the context of the management system standards (ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008 or ISO 14001:2004),
certification refers to the issuing of written assurance (the certificate) by an independent external body that it has
audited a management system and verified that it conforms to the requirements specified in the standard.
Typically, other more specific systems engineering standards are not the subject of certification. They are
self-imposed in order to improve uniformity of organization and enterprise operations or to improve the quality of
products and services. Alternatively, they may be dictated by legislation, policy, or as part of a formal agreement
between an acquirer and a supplier.
Conformance testing, or type testing, is testing to determine whether a product or system meets some specified
standard that has been developed for efficiency or interoperability. To aid in this, many test procedures and test
setups have been developed either by the standard's maintainers or by external organizations, such as the
Underwriters Laboratory (UL), specifically for testing conformity to standards.
Conformance testing is often performed by external organizations, which is sometimes the standards body itself, to
give greater guarantees of compliance. Products tested in such a manner are then advertised as being certified by that
external organization as complying with the standard. Service providers, equipment manufacturers, and equipment
suppliers rely on this data to ensure quality of service (QoS) through this conformance process.
Tailoring of Standards
Since the SE standards provide guidelines, they are most often tailored to fit the needs of organizations and their
enterprises in their operations and/or for the products and services that they provide, as well as to provide agreement
in a contract. Tailoring is a process described in an annex to the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015) standard.
The ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015) addresses the issues of conformance, compliance, and tailoring as follows:
• Full conformance, or a claim of full conformance, first declares the set of processes for which conformance is
claimed. Full conformance is achieved by demonstrating that all of the requirements of the declared set of
processes have been satisfied using the outcomes as evidence.
• Tailored conformance is an international standard that is used as a basis for establishing a set of processes that do
not qualify for full conformance; the clauses of this international standard are selected or modified in accordance
with the tailoring process.
• The tailored text for which tailored conformance is claimed is declared. Tailored conformance is achieved by
demonstrating that requirements for the processes, as tailored, have been satisfied using the outcomes as evidence.
• When the standard is used to help develop an agreement between an acquirer and a supplier, clauses of the
standard can be selected for incorporation in the agreement with or without modification. In this case, it is more
appropriate for the acquirer and supplier to claim compliance with the agreement than conformance with the
standard.
• Any organization (e.g., a national organization, industrial association, or company) imposing the standard as a
condition of trade should specify and make public the minimum set of required processes, activities, and tasks
which constitute a supplier's conformance with the standard.
References
Works Cited
Arnold, S., and H. Lawson. 2004. "Viewing systems from a business management perspective." Systems
Engineering, 7 (3): 229.
ISO. 2008. Quality management systems -- Requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for
Standardisation. ISO 9001:2008.
ISO. 2004. Environmental management systems -- Requirements with guidance for use. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO 14001:2004
Roedler, G. 2010. "An Overview of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, System Life Cycle Processes. Asian Pacific Council on
Systems Engineering." Asia-Pacific Council on Systems Engineering (APCOSE) Conference, Keelung, Taiwan.
Primary References
Roedler, G. 2010. "An Overview of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, System Life Cycle Processes." Proceedings of the 4th
Asian Pacific Council on Systems Engineering (APCOSE) Conference, 4-6 October 2010, Keelung, Taiwan.
None.

References
[1] http:/ / www. iso. org/ directives
572
Applications of Systems Engineering

Lead Author: Bud Lawson, Contributing Author: Rick Adcock
Part 4 of the Guide to the SE Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) focuses on the application of systems engineering to the
creation and life cycle management of various types of systems.
Figure 1 SEBoK Part 4 in context (SEBoK Original). For more detail see Structure of the SEBoK
In particular, the part covers product systems, service systems, enterprise systems, and systems of systems (SoS). It
also contains a knowledge area describing Healthcare SE as a domain extension of these general SE approaches.
This is the first of a number of planned domain-based extensions.

• Product Systems Engineering
• Service Systems Engineering
• Enterprise Systems Engineering
• Systems of Systems (SoS)
• Healthcare Systems Engineering
Systems Engineering Application

The different ways in which each of these contexts shapes the application of the generic SE Life Cycle and Process
knowledge in Part 3 are discussed in detail in the KA above.
It is important to note that none of the contexts above are intended to be wholly separate or mutually exclusive from
the others. They should be seen as overlapping and related frameworks which provide a starting point for how
generic SE might be used to fulfil real world needs. We might think of each as a model of how SE can work in the
real world. Each gives advice on how to use generic SE life cycle and process knowledge against its own viewpoint.
If necessary, each may also develop new or extended knowledge relevant to its context, which becomes part of the
extended toolkit of SE. Like any set of models, each has its own simplifications, strengths and weaknesses. As a
general principle we would always select the simplest model available which fits the purpose and use that. For a
complex outcome the combination of a number of models may be needed.
The real-world application of SE is no different. In most real projects, combinations of Product, Service, Enterprise
and SoS knowledge may be needed to achieve success. The extent to which these combinations are taken from
pre-determined approaches vs. the need for systems engineers to create such combinations as part of the application
of SE is a key question for how SE is used. The final part of this knowledge, how SE is applied in the real world, sits
within the knowledge base of the various application domain. Some domains have a very detailed set of procedures,
guidelines and standards relevant to that domain, while others take general SE and apply it as needed using the
judgement of those involved. In general, all domains have parts of both domain specific guidelines and experienced
people. The SEBoK was originally written to be domain independent, other than through the application examples in
part 7. To complete the SEBoK, we intend to create a series of Domain Application KA. These will give an overview
of how SE application maps to domain practice. They are aimed at both the general SE reader who wants to know
more about a domain and those working within a domain.
The Healthcare SE KA contained in this version of the SEBoK is the first such domain specific extension of the
SEBoK.
References
Works Cited
None
Primary References
None.
None.

575
Knowledge Area: Product Systems

Engineering
Product Systems Engineering

Lead Authors: Bud Lawson, Ricardo Pineda
Product systems engineering (PSE) is at the core of the

new product development process (NPDP) that is
needed to successfully develop and deploy products
into different market segments. A market can be
consumer based (e.g., private enterprises or general This knowledge area is graciously sponsored by PPI.
consumers) or it can be public (not-for-profit). Public
markets address the strategic needs of a country or region, such as military, healthcare, educational, transportation,
and energy needs. NPDP has two significantly overlapping and integrated activities:
1. Systems engineering: This includes concept generation, engineering design/development, and deployment
2. Market development: This includes market research, market analysis, product acceptance and market growth
(diffusion), and rate of adoption
NPDP also includes manufacturability/producibility, logistics and distribution, product quality, product disposal,
conformance to standards, stakeholder’s value added, and meeting customer’s expectations. The internal enterprise
competence and capabilities such as customer support, sales & marketing, maintenance and repair, personnel
training, etc., must also be taken into account.
Topics
• Product Systems Engineering Background
• Product as a System Fundamentals
• Business Activities Related to Product Systems Engineering
• Product Systems Engineering Key Aspects
• Product Systems Engineering Special Activities
The Product Systems Engineering Background article discusses product types and the need for a product to be
aligned with the business objectives of the enterprise. It also discusses the relationships between PSE, product
development and technology development.
Various types of connections between product elements, and the concept of enabling systems are introduced in the
Product as a System Fundamentals article. It also discusses product architecture, modeling, analysis, and integration
with various specialty engineering areas.
Product launching and product offerings have close linkages to different business processes. The major linkages are
to business development, marketing, product lines, quality management, project management, operations
management, supply chain management, etc. These and other topics are described in the Business Activities Related
to Product Systems Engineering article.
Products emerge when they are realized based upon a system definition. Realizing the system results in instances of
the system that are either delivered as products to a specific acquirer (based upon an agreement) or are offered
directly to buyers and users. Key Aspects of PSE are discussed in the Product Systems Engineering Key Aspects
article, which discusses aspects such as acquired vs. offered products, product lifecycle and adoption rates, integrated
product teams (IPTs) and integrated product development teams (IPDTs), product architectures, requirements and
standards, etc.
The last article, Product Systems Engineering Special Activities, covers some of the special activities carried out by
PSE during the different stages from concept through product deployment.
Key Terms and Concepts
Product
A product is an artifact that is created by some person or by some process such as a manufacturing process, software
source code compilation and integration, building construction, creative writing process, or data processing.
In general, a business product is defined as a thing produced by labor or effort, or the result of an act or a process. It
stems from the verb produce, from the Latin prōdūce(re) (to) lead or bring forth. Since 1575, the word product has
referred to anything produced, and since 1695, the word product has referred to a thing or things produced.
In economics and commerce, products belong to a broader category of goods. The economic meaning of the word
product was first used by political economist Adam Smith. In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to
a market that might satisfy a want or a need. In retail industries, products are called merchandise. In manufacturing,
products are purchased as raw materials and sold as finished goods. Commodities are usually raw materials, such as
metals and agricultural products, but a commodity can also be anything widely available in the open market. In
project management, products are the formal definitions of the project deliverables that make up or contribute to
delivering the objectives of the project. In insurance, the policies are considered products offered for sale by the
insurance company that created the contract.
Product System
A product system is the combination of end products and the enabling products for those end products. This concept
of a product system is illustrated in Figure 1. In the ANSI/EIA 632-2003 standard, just the term system is used, but
the scope of the standard is clearly restricted to product systems.
Figure 1. Product System Components (ANSI/EIA 632). Excerpts from "Processes for Engineering a
System" (EIA-632), Copyright © (1999) TechAmerica. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted by Permission. All
The end product can also be considered as a system with its own elements or subsystems, each of which has its own
enabling products as illustrated in Figure 2. The product development process usually focuses only on the
engineering of the end product. PSE is essential when the enabling products are by themselves complex or their
relationship to the end product is complex. Otherwise, the use of a traditional product development process is
sufficient.
Figure 2. End Products and Enabling Products (ANSI/EIA 632). Excerpts from "Processes for Engineering a System" (EIA-632),
Copyright © (1999) TechAmerica. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted by Permission. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Product Realization System

The product realization system is a related system that enables the realization of the product system. It consists of all
the resources to be applied in causing the Intervention System [i.e., the product system, in this case] to be fully
conceived, developed, produced, tested, and deployed (Martin 2004). Lawson (2010) refers to this as a respondent
system in the system coupling diagram. The intervention system is the system that is to be realized (or conceived and
brought into being) in order to address some perceived problem in the context as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Realization System That Creates the Intervention to Solve a Problem (Martin 2004). Reprinted with Permission of
Aerospace. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
The realization system can be a service system (as described in knowledge area Service Systems Engineering) or an
enterprise system (as described in the knowledge are Enterprise Systems Engineering). When the realization system
is a service system, then the service could partially realize the system by just designing the product system without
developing or creating it. This design service system can pass the design to a manufacturing service system that turns
the design into a physical artifact. Usually an enterprise is established to orchestrate the disparate services into a
cohesive whole that is efficiently and effectively performed to achieve the strategic goals of that enterprise.
The product realization system utilizes a product realization process as described in (Magrab et al 2010) or a product
development process as described in (Wheelwright and Clark 1992).
Product Sustainment System

When the realization system delivers the product system into its intended environment, the product often needs a set
of services to keep that product operational. This other system, when needed, is called the product sustainment
system. It consists of various enabling products and operational services. The sustainment system in relation to the
realization system and the deployed product system is illustrated in Figure 4. Notice that the realization may need to
develop or modify the sustainment for the particular intervention (product) system under development.
Figure 4. Product Sustainment System in Support of the Deployed Product System (Martin 2004). Reprinted with Permission of
Aerospace. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Product Systems Engineering, Service Systems Engineering and Enterprise

Systems Engineering
PSE is in line with Traditional Systems Engineering (TSE) as captured in most textbooks on the subject, such as
Wasson (2006), Sage and Rouse (2009), and Blanchard and Fabrycky (2011). However, they do not cover the full
breadth of PSE since they tend to focus on hardware and software products only. Other kinds of products to be
engineered include personnel, facilities, data, materials, processes, techniques, procedures, and media (Martin 1997;
Lawson 2010). Further discussions on the distinctions between the various kinds of products is provided in the
Product Systems Engineering Background article. Product system domains could be data-intensive (e.g.
transportation system), facilities-intensive (e.g. chemical processing plant), hardware-intensive (e.g. defense
systems), or technique-intensive (e.g. search and rescue system). Most product systems are a composite of several
different kinds of products that must be fully integrated to realize the complete value-added potential for the different
stakeholders.
When compared to Service Systems Engineering (SSE) and Enterprise Systems Engineering (ESE), PSE has some
unique considerations:
• Often a product is part of a product line where both the product line and the products that make up that product
line must be engineered simultaneously.
• Products are often composed of parts and sub-assemblies produced by several suppliers. This entails the need to
work closely with the supply chain to ensure a successful product offering.
• Large complex products often require a lengthy and complicated series of steps for assembly, integration and test.
During integration, many of the key assumptions made during the initial product design could be challenged.
• Products will usually require certification as to their safety or other factors like energy conservation and
environmental compatibility. Electronic products often require certification to ensure electromagnetic
compatibility and limited electronic emissions into the radio frequency spectrum. Transportation products require
certification for safe operations.
• Products often have a complicated distribution network since they are not always developed where the end user
may require it. There could be depots, warehouses, multi-modal transportation, wholesalers, dealers, and retail
stores as part of this distribution network. This introduces challenges in delivery, maintenance and support of the
product.
• Products must be engineered along with the realization system and the sustainment system. Sometimes it is
necessary to make tradeoffs between the features and functions of the product system, the realization system and
the sustainment system.
These considerations and others will be addressed in the articles under this knowledge area. One of the
responsibilities of ESE is to manage these various considerations across multiple product lines across the enterprise
while maximizing profits and customer satisfaction. SSE is often dependent on the products resulting from the PSE.
A service will often be based on a product infrastructure that includes elements like data processing, hardware,
software, data storage, data entry devices, display devices, service delivery facilities and techniques, service desk
technicians, maintenance personnel, service offering catalogs and printed materials. Each of these products in the
service infrastructure may need to be separately engineered using its own PSE lifecycle.
Creating Value
An enterprise that creates products must also create value that exceeds the cost of the product in the eyes of the
customer. This applies to both for-profit and not-for-profit private and public enterprises. The creation and delivery
of products may be the result of an acquisition agreement or an offering directly to buyers or users. To remain
competitive, enterprises also need to understand the effects of the global economy, trends in industry, technology
development needs, effects of new technology breakthroughs, market segments creation and their expectations, and
most importantly, ever evolving customer expectations.
Ring (1998) defines a system value cycle with three levels that a systems approach must consider to deliver real
world benefit:
1. stakeholder value
2. customer need
3. system solution
Value will be fully realized only when it is considered within the context of time, cost, and other resources
appropriate to key stakeholders.
Aligning product characteristics with associated operational activities

The user of a product views the product as an asset that can be utilized in one's own systems of interest (Lawson
2010). Thus, in supplying the product, the expected form of operation becomes a driving factor in determining the
characteristics of the product. In several contexts, in particular for military related products, the desired operational
activities are termed concept of operations (ConOps) and in the case of commercial enterprises the intended use of
the system is described through some form of Market Service Description of the product. The intended use of the
product is market/customer driven and so the product characteristics must be aligned with the operational intent.
Architectures as basis for value assessment

Architectures can be used by enterprises to shift product development from individual products to an underlying
product line architecture that incorporates the flexibility required by the enterprise to rapidly tailor new technologies
and features to specific customer requirements (Phillips 2001). In determining the architecture of the product system,
various alternative designs may arise. Each of the architecture alternatives is to be evaluated with respect to its value
contribution to end users and other stakeholders.
Role of evaluation criteria in selection between product alternatives

In assessing the product system value, one must consider the measures that are to be used to determine the goodness
of the product alternatives (alternative architectures and technologies) with respect to producibility, quality,
efficiency, performance, cost, schedule and most importantly, the coverage provided in meeting the customer’s
requirement or market opportunity.
Role of tradeoffs in maximizing value

The evaluation of alternatives must include the tradeoffs between conflicting properties. For example, in striving for
superior quality and efficiency, tradeoffs must be made with respect to schedule and cost. See article on
Measurement in Part 3. Tradeoffs are made during different stages of the development process: at the product or
system level, at the subsystem and architecture definition level, and at the technology level (Blanchard and Fabrycky
2011).
There are a variety of methods for performing tradeoff analysis such as: utility theory, analytic hierarchical process,
the Pugh selection method, multi-objective decision, multi-attribute utility analysis, and multi-variate analysis. For
software, the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) provides 'The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM)'
(Kazman et al., 2000) for evaluating software architectures relative to quality attribute goals. ATAM evaluations
expose architectural risks that potentially inhibit the achievement of an organization's business goals. The ATAM not
only reveals how well an architecture satisfies particular quality goals, but also provides insight into how those
quality goals interact with each other and how they trade off against each other.
Expanding role of software in creation of product value

Software has an increasing role in providing the desired functionality in many products. The embedding of software
in many types of products (such as transportation vehicles, home appliance, and production equipment) accounts for
an ever-increasing portion of the product functionality. The current trend is the development of a network of systems
that incorporate sensing and activating functions. The use of various software products in providing service is
described in the Service Systems Engineering knowledge area.
References
Works Cited
Blanchard, B.S., and W.J. Fabrycky. 2011. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice Hall International
Series in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Kazman, R., M. Klein, and P. Clements. 2000. ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation. Pittsburgh, PA, USA:
Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004,
ESC-TR-2000-004.
Magrab, E., S. Gupta, P. McCluskey, and P. Sandborn. 2010. Integrated Product and Process Design and
Development - The Product Realization Process. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Systems." Proceedings of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium,
2004, Toulouse, France.
Phillips, F. 2001. Market-oriented Technology Management - Innovating for Profit in Entrepreneurial Times. Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Pugh, S. 1990. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice Hall.
Ring, J. 1998. "A Value Seeking Approach to the Engineering of Systems." Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1998, San Diego, CA, USA. p. 2704-2708.
Sage, A., and W. Rouse. (eds.) 1999. Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wasson, C.S. 2006. System Analysis, Design, and Development. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Wheelwright, S., and K. Clark. 1992. Managing New Product and Process Development: Text and Cases.
Columbus, OH, USA: Free Press.
Primary References
Systems." Proceedings of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium,
2004, Toulouse, France.
None.

Product Systems Engineering Background

Lead Author: Ricardo Pineda
Product Types
A system is by definition composed of elements that
interact. The system itself is usually an element of a
larger system, and each element can often also be
The "Product Systems Engineering" knowledge area is graciously
viewed as a system on its own. sponsored by PPI.
A system element consists of one or more products.
Products need to be produced or acquired. Some can be acquired or procured as-is, without need for fabrication or
modification. Others need to be engineered, and in some cases, systems-engineered (Martin 1997). Basic product
types are depicted in the figure below.
Types of products are not limited to hardware or software. Many other types of products perform functions necessary
to meet stakeholder needs. Some are only relevant to certain industries or domains, such as structures for civil
engineering, or ships for shipping or the naval domain. Systems engineers must remember not to allocate the
required behavior for a system to hardware and software elements alone.
While we may associate the idea of a product with concrete objects like computer chip, phones, aircraft, or even
command, control and communications centers, an organization or a process can also be a product. Sometimes a
product is not complex enough to justify performing Product SE, and only needs product design engineering.
Enterprise SE and Service SE should determine whether a product needs Product SE.
Product Taxonomy
For any system being developed, the systems engineers must decide what are the right elements to be included. This
is not self-evident, because basic product types are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, some would
consider that facilities contain hardware and people. Others would consider facilities to be separate from hardware
and people. Some would include material as part of hardware, while others would not. Creating a taxonomy of
product types can help the systems engineer think clearly and thoroughly about what components to include.
Business Objectives and Products

When it develops and launches a new product, an enterprise must align that product with its business goals, internal
capabilities, and competition. It must align the end product with the systems expected to realize and sustain it.
The new product concept must be based on analysis that, besides product potential, also explores the ability of the
enterprise to exploit that potential, including factors like organizational culture, focus, goals, and processes. Present
and future markets and technology must be analyzed. So must several dimensions of competition: competitors’
offerings and their plans, for entry into new markets and for product expansion including new functionality, features,
or services. These, and the ability of the enterprise to react to them, must also be monitored for the enterprise to
remain competitive in the long term.
Accelerating economic globalization since the 1970s has forced enterprises to respond to global needs, not just local
or regional ones. Enterprises in the resulting hyper-competitive business environment must analyze their financial
goals, their market positions, and the business segments in which they participate, in order to understand what
products are required.
This is true for completely new products , product enhancements, penetration of new markets, and growth within
existing markets.
Relationship between Product Systems Engineering and Product Development

Product development is the process of bringing a new product to market. Product SE (PSE) considers the complete
product system–that is the product in the context of all its enabling elements. PSE takes a full life cycle perspective,
“from cradle to grave” or “dust to dust.”
Technology-based product development may be thought of as coming from two sources. One, where innovation
enhances existing technology, is aimed at relatively short-term market windows. The other involves long-term
research to identify the technology developments required to realize the concept. These may be technologies whose
availability is not foreseen in the near future, meaning that substantial investment and long lead times may be
required before the proof of concept, initial operational capabilities (IOCs) or prototyping stages are reached, let
alone the commitment to realize the actual product offering. Some authors claim that the systems engineering
process and the new product development (NPD) process for this second source are one and the same.
It is from the second source that strategic initiatives (long-term applied research) realize new products in areas like
military aircraft or bioengineering. When research resolves fundamental questions on matters of science or
national/regional interest technology, breakthroughs occur.
This article concentrates on the first source of technology-based product development, that is, the one driven by
ever-evolving market needs to enhance existing technology.
Product Development Patterns

When existing or near-future technology innovations are exploited to generate new product ideas, product
development may follow any one of following scenarios (Phillips 2001):
• Product development may use well-established technologies to help the enterprise improve the efficiency of
current operations.
• Product development may use well-established technologies to help the enterprise into new kinds of operations.
• Product development may use leading edge technologies to improve the efficiency of current operations.
• Product development may use leading edge technologies to help the enterprise into new kinds of operations.
The product itself may simply be a modification of an existing product or its presentation, it may possess new or
different characteristics that offer additional benefits to the customer, and/or it may be entirely new and satisfy a
newly-defined customer want or market niche (http:/ / www. businessdictionary. com/ definition/
product-development.html [1]).
Existing realization or sustainment systems may not be adequate to develop a given product. For example, it might
be necessary to change development practices, use different testing methods or facilities, or upgrade manufacturing
equipment and procedures. There might need to be improved customer support procedures and newly trained support
personnel, upgraded maintenance facilities and tools, or modified spare parts delivery techniques.
Market Pressures
The product development process must be dynamic, adaptive, and competitive on cost, time-to-market, performance,
and quality on a global scale. This is because in the global economy continuous technology innovation and
constantly evolving markets and customer needs demand a rapid response.
Products themselves are often multidisciplinary in nature; product development must have close participation, not
only from the different specialty engineering fields (mechanical, electrical, industrial, materials, and so on), but also
from the finance field to analyze the total cost of development (including production), marketing and sales to
understand market behavior and acceptance, manufacturers and distributors, and legal and public relations experts.
All this has mandated enterprises to assess how they create their products and services. The result has been an effort
to streamline the development process. One example of this is seen by the deployment of integrated product teams
(IPTs) sometimes known as integrated product development teams (IPDTs).
Product Systems Engineering

Product systems engineering strives for the efficient use of company resources in order to achieve business
objectives and deliver a quality product. Product systems engineering activities range from concept to analysis to
design and determine how conceptual and physical factors can be altered to manufacture the most cost-effective,
environmentally friendly product that satisfies customer requirements. Engineering the product system requires an
interdisciplinary approach that includes an analysis of the product and its related elements such as manufacturing,
maintenance, support, logistics, phase-out, and disposal; these are all activities which belong to either the realization
system or the sustainment system. The proper application of systems engineering and analysis ensures the timely and
balanced use of human, financial, and technological assets, and technology investments to minimize problems,
harmonize overall results, and maximize customer satisfaction and company profits.
Products are as diverse as the customers that acquire them and there are no universally accepted methods, processes,
and technologies (MPTs) for end-to-end analysis of products and their supporting subsystems. Every product needs
to adapt existing MPTs based on prior experiences and best practices, such as Toyota (Hitchens 2007), MITRE
(Trudeau 2010), and NASA (NASA SELDP 2011). Product systems engineering helps develop the end-to-end
analysis of products and sub-systems by performing the following tasks:
• determining the overall scope of needs for the product system;
• defining product and system requirements;
• considering all interactions between the different elements of the product system;
• organizing and integrating engineering disciplines; and
• establishing a disciplined approach that includes review, evaluation and feedback, and ensures orderly and
efficient progress.
Constantly evolving needs and requirements, along with constant technology innovations, may render a committed
product development obsolete even before deployment. This has led to debate among systems engineering
professionals on the need for the systems engineering process to become more rapidly adaptable. Platform-based
solutions to resolve some of these challenges (infrastructure as a service, platform as a service, and software as a
service) are being studied and proposed (MITRE 2010; Boehm 2010).
Integrated Product Development Process

The integrated product development process (IPDP) starts with understanding market needs and developing a
strategy that creates products that satisfy or exceed customer expectations, respond to evolving customer demands,
adapt to changing business environments, and incorporate systems thinking to generate novel ideas and co-create
value with extensive stakeholders’ participation. IPDP is a continuously evolving process that strives to realize
products whose cost, performance, features, and time-to-market help increase company profitability and market
share. Magrab, et al. (2010) discussed the IPDP in terms of four different stages; Figure 1 provides a snapshot of an
IPDP and the main tasks carried out at each stage.
Stage I: Product Identification

During the product identification stage, the enterprise aims to identify an enterprise-wide strategy that flows down to
individual product strategies resulting in a good business investment for the company. During this stage addressable
markets for the product are identified in addition to geographical coverage of the product. The developments through
this stage result in demonstration of strong customer need, determination of potential markets and geographic scope,
the fitness of enterprise core capabilities to the product strategy, business profitability (return on investment, profit &
loss), etc.
During this stage an integrated product team (IPT) first develops the IPDP for the project, usually by tailoring a
corporate IPDP standard. The IPT assesses required technology innovation, feasibility of existing technologies,
estimated time and cost of technology development, and the risks associated with markets, finances and technologies
risk, etc. This stage also takes into account inputs from the continuous improvement (CI) process to develop new
features and enhancements in existing products to address new market needs or customer demands.
Stage II: Concept Development

The main goal of the Concept Development stage is to generate feasible concepts for the potential product and
develop MPTs that will satisfy the product’s performance goals of economic viability and customer satisfaction.
These concept designs must ensure that the company’s core competencies can satisfy the requirements to produce the
products while taking into account the market viability, manufacturability, and technical feasibility through an
extensive analysis of alternative process.
During this stage SE supports the IPT in identifying different operational scenarios and modes of operation,
functional requirements of the products, technology and performance risks, and the main components of the products
and required interfaces among them, etc. This stage involves a highly interactive and iterative exchange of concepts
among several IPTs and, depending on complexity of the products, a Systems Engineering Integration Team may be
required to ensure analysis of all the possible solutions. During this stage inputs from the CI process helps analyze
new technologies/processes including upgrades to existing technologies and create products that result in enhanced
customer experiences.
Stage III: Design and Manufacturing

During the design and manufacturing stage the actual product is realized and manufactured. This stage starts with
creating engineering drawings for the product, product configuration items specs, "design for X" (DFX),
manufacturing design plans, production plans and schedules, test production run to ensure that the product meets
customer requirements and quality criteria, and a plan for full production, logistics and distribution.
During this stage the product design & manufacturing engineering team works closely with operations managers to
create MPTs to manage the technical effort for the product from an end-to-end perspective. Some of the SE activities
during this stage include product integration, verification and validation plans; modeling, simulation, test &
evaluation of the product system under critical scenarios; launch readiness plans including end-user test plans,
operational readiness, etc. During this stage MPTs are developed and documented for proper handling of defective
parts, processes, or functionalities. The CI process inputs include product and process performance enhancements
and sustained life-cycle operations support.
Stage IV: Product Launch

During the product launch stage, the product is delivered to its potential markets. During production and deployment,
MPTs are developed to ensure that the product meets its quality goals, satisfies customer requirements, and realizes
the business plan goals. This requires provisions for customer care, logistics, maintenance, training etc., and a CI
process to monitor product and product system technical performance and product quality. The CI process is realized
through extensive data collection using customer satisfaction surveys and remotely or manually observing,
recording, and analyzing process performance metrics, technical performance measure, quality metrics, etc.
Figure 1. Integrated Product Development Process. (SEBoK Original)
Relationship between Product Systems Engineering and Technology

Development
As technological advancement accelerates, product life cycles become shorter, especially for high technology
products. As a result, enterprises risk having outdated or obsolete products that have lost pace with markets trends,
technology trends, or customer expectations.
Product systems engineering should bring awareness of technology changes and trends to the analysis of new
product ideas or innovations. This affects the time and cost inputs into the technical feasibility analysis of the
product. The result should include a road map of required technology developments, which is then used to create the
overall road map for the new product offering.
In these cases, new product ideas impose requirements on new technology developments.
On the other hand, when technology developments or breakthroughs drive product innovation or the generation of
new markets, the technology developments may also generate requirements on product features and functionalities.
Factors which dictate decisions about introducing products include the technology readiness levels (TRL), the
integration readiness levels (IRL), the manufacturing readiness levels (MRL), the system readiness levels (SRL), and
the operational readiness of the enterprise to launch the product system. See the "Readiness Levels" section in the
Product Systems Engineering Special Activities article.
Understanding the entities (i.e., components or elements) that compose the product is not a trivial task for systems
engineers. It is not unusual for a new product to require developments in several technologies, including new
materials, electronic components, software, maintenance and repair procedures, processes, or organizational
structures. All of these developments must be factored into the IPDP for the successful deployment and proper use of
the product.
Figure 2. Basic Product Types that Constitute a Product System (Martin 1997). This material is reproduced with permission of
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Product Type Examples

Examples of each product type are shown below (Martin 1997).
Table 1. Product Types (Martin 1997). This material is reproduced with permission of John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Type Examples
Hardware Computer processor unit, radar transmitter, satellite payload, telephone, diesel engine, data storage device, network router, airplane
landing gear
Software Computer operating system, firmware, satellite control algorithm, robot control code, telephone switching software, database
application
Personnel Astronaut, computer operator, clerk, business executive, Laika (the cosmonaut dog), bus driver, cashier, maintenance technician
Facilities Space rocket launch pad, warehouse building, shipping docks, airport runway, railroad tracks, conference room, traffic tunnel, bridge,
local area network cables
Data Personnel records, satellite telemetry data, command and control instructions, customer satisfaction scores
Materials Graphite composite, paper, gold, concrete, stone, fiberglass, radar absorption material, cladded metals, integrated circuit substrate,
magnetic memory core
Media Data storage media (tape, disc, memory card), signal transport media (twisted pair wire, fiber optic cable, RF spectrum),
communications media (television, radio, magazines), social media (blogs, Twitter, Facebook)
Techniques Soldering, trouble trick response process, change notice handling, telephone answering protocol, project scheduling, data sorting
algorithm
Materials could be thought of as basic raw materials, like steel, or as complex materials, like cladded metals,
graphite composites, or building aggregate material. Personnel are not normally thought of as a “product,” but that
can change depending on the type of system in question. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) space program “system” certainly produces astronauts. When personnel are considered product(s), it is not
usually possible to simply find and hire personnel with the requisite knowledge, skills, and experience. These
personnel “products” can often be developed using a product SE approach (Martin 1996). For example, you could
specify requirements (i.e., required knowledge, skills, and experience) for each person that is part of the system.
Interfaces can be specified for each person, and an assessment can be made as to the maturity of each person (i.e.,
each potential product). These are a few examples of how product SE can be applied to personnel products.
In enterprise systems engineering, we may need education and training systems to make up a part of our personnel
system in order to produce people with the right competencies and capabilities.
References
Works Cited
Academy of Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL). 2009. NASA's Systems Engineering
Competencies. Washington, D.C., USA: US National Aeronautics and Space Association. Available at: http:/ / www.
nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/pm-development/pm_se_competency_framework.html [2].
Boehm, B. 2010. Systems 2020 Strategic Initiative. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Systems Engineering Research Center
(SERC), SERC-2010-TR-009.
Grady, J. 2010. Systems Synthesis - Product and Process Design. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
MITRE. 2010. Platform as a Service: A 2010 Marketplace Analysis, Cloud Computing Series. Bedford, MA, USA:
Systems Engineering at MITRE.
Morse, L., and D. Babcock. 2007. Managing Engineering and Technology, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Phillips, F. 2001. Market Oriented Technology Management: Innovating for Profit in Entrepreneurial Times. New
Trudeau, P.N. 2010. Designing and Enhancing a Systems Engineering Training and Development Program.
Bedford, MA, USA: The MITRE Corporation.
Primary References
Martin, J.N. 1997. Systems Engineering Guidebook: A process for developing systems and product, 1st ed. Boca
Academy of Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL). 2009. NASA's Systems Engineering
Competencies. Washington, D.C., USA: US National Aeronautics and Space Association. Available at: http:/ / www.
nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/pm-development/pm_se_competency_framework.html [2].
Boehm, B. 2010. Systems 2020 Strategic Initiative. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Systems Engineering Research Center
(SERC), SERC-2010-TR-009.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
MITRE. 2010. Platform as a Service: A 2010 Marketplace Analysis, Cloud Computing Series. Bedford, MA, USA:
Systems Engineering at MITRE.
Morse, L., and D. Babcock. 2007. Managing Engineering and Technology, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Trudeau, P.N. 2010. Designing and Enhancing a Systems Engineering Training and Development Program.
Bedford, MA, USA: The MITRE Corporation.

References
[1] http:/ / www. businessdictionary. com/ definition/ product-development. html
[2] http:/ / www. nasa. gov/ offices/ oce/ appel/ pm-development/ pm_se_competency_framework. html
Product as a System Fundamentals

This article introduces fundamental concepts of product

systems.
Product Elements and Connections

Product systems consist of product elements and two sponsored by PPI.
kinds of connections: connections among elements, and
connections between elements and things in the system environment. That portion of the environment that can be
influenced by the system or that can influence the system is called the “context.”
Connections between elements contain interactions and relationships (Hybertson 2009). A connection is more than a
mere interface.
Interactions occur across interfaces between the elements inside or outside the system, and can be defined as
exchanges of data, materials, forces, or energy. Connections with an interactive nature can be represented in various
engineering artifacts: schematic block diagrams, data flow diagrams, free body diagrams, interface control diagrams,
port specifications, energy transfer diagrams, and so on. Product systems engineering (PSE) usually defines
interactions in an interface control document, interface design document, interface requirements document, or the
equivalent.
Connections also encompass relationships between elements. These relationships can be spatial, motion-related,
temporal, or social.
Spatial relationships:
• one element is underneath another
• two elements are x units apart
• one element is inside another
Motion-related relationships:
• the relative velocity of two elements is v units
• the relative acceleration between two elements is a units
Temporal relationships:
• one element exists before another
• two elements must exist at the same time
• two elements must be separated in time by t units
Social relationships:
• a human element feels a particular way about a system
• a human element owns another (non-human) element

• a human element understands the operation of a system in a particular way
Relationships that are not about time can still change over time. For example, an element that is inside another
element during one mode of operation can be outside of it during a different mode of operation. Therefore, one
should not assume that non-temporal relationships are necessarily static in time.
Relationships can be represented in engineering artifacts, including the timing diagram, timeline diagram, mission
reference profile, capability road map, and project schedule chart.
Social relationships include the implicit or explicit social obligations or expectations between the roles that human
elements play in a system. These roles may be assigned different authorities, responsibilities, and accountabilities.
See the discussion on organization behavior in the article Team Dynamics. Organizational behavior theories and
human factors may need to be considered when engineering such a product system.
There can also be social relationships between the humans and the non-human elements of the system. This may
involve how the human “feels” about things in the system or perhaps even the system as a whole. Humans inside or
outside the system-of-interest may have different degrees of “understanding” with respect to how the system
operates, its limitations and capabilities, and the best way to operate it safely and effectively. The “ownership”
relationship can be important in determining things like who can operate or change some configuration or mode of
the system.
There are many such social relationships in a product system that are often ignored or misunderstood when
performing PSE. Social relationships can affect the overall performance or behavior of a product system to the point
of determining its success or failure.
Core Product and its Enabling Products & Operational Services

A variety of systems (themselves being products or services) enable the development, delivery, operation and
eventual disposal of a product, as shown in Figure 1. The concept of enabling systems is defined in the ISO/IEC
15288 standard (2015).
Figure 1. Example of Enabling Systems (Lawson 2010). Reprinted with permission of Harold "Bud" Lawson. All other rights are
In the figure, the system-of-interest (SoI) goes into operation as a delivered product or offered service in the
utilization stage while maintenance and logistics are provided (by a product sustainment system) simultaneously in
the support stage. These two stages are commonly executed in parallel, and they offer opportunities to observe any
need for changes in the properties of the product or service or how it is operated and supported. Making changes
iterates the life cycle and results in new or improved products or features.
The delivered product and its enabling systems collectively form a wider system-of-interest (WSOI). The project
design enabling system is an enterprise based system asset that establishes the strategy and means of organizing the
projects to be executed along the life cycle. In many larger organizations, this type of enabling system is
institutionalized and can be based upon recommendations of the Project Management Institute (PMI).
Product systems should be viewed as enabling service systems. That is, once deployed, a product system provides a
service that contributes to an enterprise’s operations. To the acquirer, the SoI provides operational services to users.
This is true at several levels:
• Hardware and software products are used to enable the provisioning of service systems,
• Enterprises incorporate products as system assets and use them to enable operations, and
• Provided products are integrated into the system of systems.
Product Architecture, Modeling, and Analysis

IEEE standard 1471-2000 defines architecture as "the fundamental organization of a system embodied in its
components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and
evolution" (IEEE 2000). Similarly, ISO/IEC 42010-2011 defines architecture as "fundamental concepts or properties
of a system in its environment embodied in its elements, relationships, and in the principles of its design and
evolution" (ISO/IEC 2011).
A product's purpose (stakeholder’s need) is realized by a product system (the SoI). Because product systems are
composed of different entities (components, assemblies, subsystems, information, facilities, processes, organizations,
people, etc.) that together produce the results unachievable by any of the entities alone, architecting the product is
based on a whole systems approach. To architect with a whole systems approach means to define, document, design,
develop, manufacture, distribute, maintain, improve, and to certify proper implementation of the product’s objectives
in terms of the functional (the "what"), the behavioral (the use, or intended operations), the logical (interaction and
relationships between entities) and the physical constructs (Wasson 2006; Maier 2009; Blanchard and Fabrycky
2011).
The system architect starts at the highest level of abstraction, concentrating on needs, functions, systems
characteristics and constraints (concerns) before identifying components, assemblies, or subsystems. This is the
systems view, and it is used to represent the stakeholder’s market service description or the concept of operations
(understanding of the opportunity/problem space).
Next to be documented, as needs become better understood, are architectural descriptions at different levels of
abstraction, representing various stakeholders interests. These are the architecture models. They define the possible
solution spaces for the product purpose in the form of detailed system, operational, behavioral, and physical
requirements of the product system.
Different modeling techniques are then used to analyze different types of requirements. For operational scenarios
and different modes of operation, there are hierarchical decomposition and allocation, architectural block diagrams
(ABD), functional block diagrams (FBD), functional flow block diagrams (FFBD), and use case diagrams. For
interactions and relationships among hardware and/or software components there are sequence diagrams, activity
diagrams, state diagrams, and data flow diagrams. See (Maier 2009) Chapter 8 for an introduction to models and
modeling.
Analysis of the solution space makes it possible to produce detailed technical specs, engineering drawings,
blueprints, software architectures, information flows, and so on, that describe the entities in the product system. An
entity’s requirements bound its attributes and characteristics, levels of performance, operational capabilities, and
design constraints. During design and integration, entity characteristics can be traced back to requirements
(requirements traceability being a key aspect of SE). Verification and validation plans created during the
requirements phase are the basis of testing certification that the product does what it was intended to do.
Overall, what occurs is the transformation of a set of requirements into products and processes that satisfy the
stakeholder's need. The architecture is represented by a set of models that communicate an integrated view of the
product's intent and purpose, and the interactions and interfaces required among all the different participating
entities. The product's purpose is articulated in terms of business objectives (market, cost, functionality,
performance, and time to deliver). The set of models includes sufficient variety to convey information appropriately
to the stakeholders, designers/developers, specialty engineering, operations, manufacturers, management, and
marketing and sales personnel.
Different architecture frameworks have been developed to guide product teams in defining the product architecture
for commercial and for public enterprises. In general, an architecture framework describes a "view," meaning a
"collection of models that represent the whole system from the perspective of a set of related stakeholder concerns."
Prime examples of architecture frameworks are the Zachman framework (Zachman 1992), The Open Group
Architecture Framework (TOGAF) (TOGAF 2011), the Enhanced-Telecom Operations Map (e-TOM), just to
mention a few in the commercial sector. In the case of public enterprises a few architecture frameworks include the
Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DODAF 2.0) (DoD 2010), the Federal Enterprise Architecture
Framework (FEAF) (FEA 2001), the British Ministry of Defense Architecture Framework (MODAF) (MOD 2004),
etc.
Differences between acquired products and offered products play an important role in defining product system
requirements. Acquired products are life cycle-managed directly by the acquirer; for instance, acquired defense
systems are defined, developed, tested, owned, operated, maintained and upgraded by the defense agency. See the
article Product Systems Engineering Key Aspects within this KA.
Figure 2. System Architectural Description Elements (Adapted from Wasson 2006). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley &
Sons Inc. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Specialty Engineering Integration

The INCOSE SE Handbook defines specialty engineering as:
“Analysis of specific features of a system that requires special skills to identify requirements and assess their impact
on the system life cycle.”
Areas of expertise that fall under this umbrella definition include logistics support, electromagnetic compatibility
analysis, environmental impact, human factors, safety and health analysis, and training. The unique characteristics,
requirements, and design challenges of a system-of-interest all help determine the areas of specialty that apply.
A number of specialty engineering areas are typically important to systems engineers working on the development,
deployment, and sustainment of product systems. For example, logistics support is essential for fielded product
systems that require maintenance and repair. The delivery of services, materials, parts, and software necessary for
supporting the system must all be considered very early in the development activity. These factors should usually be
considered before the system requirements and concept definition are complete. To integrate these specialty
disciplines sufficiently early on, the systems engineer needs to know what specialties relate to the system under
development, how they relate to the systems engineering process, and how to integrate them into the life cycle
process.
For product systems with significant hardware content and that operate in challenging environments, the following
specialty engineering areas must usually be considered:
• manufacturability,
• reliability and maintainability,
• certification (essential where human safety is an issue),
• logistics support,
• electromagnetic compatibility (if they radiate),
• environmental impact,
• human factors,
• safety and health, and
• training.
The relationship of these specialty areas to the systems engineering process must be understood and considered. The
key aspects of the relationship are:
• when the specialty needs to be considered,
• what essential data or information it provides,
• the consequences of not including the specialty in the systems engineering process, and
• how the systems engineers should interact with the specialty engineers.
Grady (2006) provides an overview, with references, for many of the specialty engineering disciplines, including
reliability engineering; parts, materials, and process engineering (PMP); maintainability engineering, availability,
producibility engineering, design to cost/life cycle cost (DTC/LCC), human factors engineering, corrosion
prevention and control (CPC), system safety engineering, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) engineering, system
security engineering, mass properties engineering, and environmental impact engineering.
Eisner (2008) lists specialty engineering as one of the “thirty elements” of systems engineering. “Specialty
engineering refers to a set of engineering topics that have to be explored on some, but not all, systems engineering
efforts. In other words, some systems involve these special disciplines and some do not. Examples of specialty
engineering areas include electromagnetic compatibility and interference, safety, physical security, computer
security, communications security, demand forecasting, object-oriented design, and value engineering.” Some of
what we consider specialty engineering in the present article, Eisner includes among his “thirty elements” of systems
engineering, but not as part of the specialty engineering element.
There is no standard list of specialty engineering disciplines. What is considered specialty engineering varies
according to the community to which the systems engineering belongs, and sometimes to the preferences of the
customer.
References
Works Cited
ANSI/IEEE. 2000. Recommended practice for architectural description for software-intensive systems. New York,
Eisner, H. 2008. "Chapter 7. Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management," in The Thirty Elements of
Systems Engineering, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Grady, J. 2006. "Chapter 3.7. System Requirements Analysis," in Specialty Engineering Requirements Analysis.
New York, NY, USA: Academic Press.
Grady, J. 2006. System Requirements Analysis. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press.
Hybertson, D. 2009. Model-oriented Systems Engineering Science: A Unifying Framework for Traditional and
Complex Systems. Boston, MA, USA: Auerbach Publications.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
MOD. 2004. Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF), version 2. London, UK: UK Ministry of
Defence.
jsp?catalogno=g116.
Zachman, J.A. 1992. "Extending and Formalizing the Framework for Information Systems Architecture." IBM
Systems Journal. 31 (3): 590-616.
Primary References
Eisner, H. 2008. "Chapter 7. Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management," in The Thirty Elements of
Systems Engineering, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
ANSI/IEEE. 2000. Recommended practice for architectural description for software-intensive systems. New York,
Grady, J. 2006. "Chapter 3.7. System Requirements Analysis," in Specialty Engineering Requirements Analysis.
New York, NY, USA: Academic Press.
Grady, J. 2006. System Requirements Analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Grady, J. 2010. Systems Synthesis- Product and Process Design. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Hybertson, D. 2009. Model-oriented Systems Engineering Science: A Unifying Framework for Traditional and
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
ISO/IEC. 2008. Systems and Software Engineering -- System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
15288:2008.

Business Activities Related to Product Systems

Engineering
This topic discusses the interfaces between product

systems engineering and other 'back office' and
management activities that take place in an enterprise.

sponsored by PPI.
Marketing, Product Life Cycle Management, & Quality Management

Product systems engineering (PSE) includes critical and robust interfaces with related business activities, such as
marketing, product life cycle management (PLM), and quality. Traditionally, PLM has been a critical stage in the
integrated product development process (IPDP) and continues to be an important tool for life cycle management
after product deployment. PLM provides an important component of the PSE end-to-end view. The other component
is the “breadth” component that captures everything relevant to the system at each life cycle stage. Recently, the
focus has started to shift from the idea of managing just the life of the product, to an expanded view that includes the
management of product-lines (families) or product platforms themselves. This provides an increase in sustainability,
flexibility, reduced development times, and important reductions in costs as new or enhanced products are not
launched from scratch every time.
PSE also includes interfaces with the marketing function; in particular, PSE works closely with the business and
market development organizations to elicit product needs and intended operations in target markets to define product
roll-out and possible phases of product introduction. Analysis of the market is critical during the entire product life
cycle from conception through retirement with the understanding that each life cycle phase requires very different
marketing approaches. During concept development, marketing has to help determine the potential market, the
addressable market segments, define products, and product/innovations requirements for those markets. During the
product introduction stage, marketing has to create demand and prompt early customers to try the product. During
the growth and maturity phases, marketing has to drive public awareness, develop the brand, and differentiate the
product and its features and feature releases to compete with new market entrants. During saturation, marketing must
help manage diminishing volumes and revenues as focus shifts from top line (increased market share) to bottom line
(increased production and distribution efficiencies) considerations. See the article on Procurement and Acquisition.
The links between PSE and quality are just as critical. The relationships between PSE and quality also reflect the
broad view which includes the product and opportunity, but also the company’s internal goals, processes, and
capabilities. Quality schemes which focus on a tangible product have been extensively used historically. More recent
approaches that acknowledge and match PSE's holistic view have come into use. Issued during 1988, ISO 9000 is a
family of standards which focuses on processes and the organization instead of the product itself. In addition, it calls
out specific requirements for the design of products and services. ISO 9001 has served as a “platform” for many other
schemes which are tailored to specific domains. A collaborative effort of the International Aerospace Quality Group,
AS9100 contains all of the base requirements of ISO 9100 and expands further requirements which are critical and
specific to the aviation, space, and defense industries. Similarly QS-16949 is a technical standard based on ISO 9001
but expanded to meet specific requirements in the worldwide automotive industry. PSE should play an important role
in the design and implementation of any quality management system. See the article on Quality Management.
Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for Development is a process improvement approach whose goal is to
help organizations improve their performance. CMMI can be used to guide process improvement across a project, a
division, or an entire organization. Although initially used in software engineering and organizational development,
CMMI use is spreading to other domains since it provides organizations with the essential elements for effective
process improvement. According to the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, CMMI describe "an
evolutionary improvement path from ad hoc, immature processes to disciplined, mature processes with improved
quality and effectiveness." (SEI 2010).
Project Management & Business Development

The end-to-end view mandated by PSE requires strong relationships with project management and business
development activities. The ‘concurrent’ thinking encouraged by PSE necessarily requires multiple projects to move
forward in parallel, but with a high level of coordination. In this sense, PSE and project management (see Systems
Engineering and Project Management) are two heavily intertwined disciplines which have been shown to generate
synergy and added value for the stakeholders.
The systems engineering management plan (SEMP) is the key document covering the activities, milestones,
organization, and resource requirements necessary to ensure the system-of-interest accomplishes its intended goals
and mission. A key objective of the SEMP, which is usually developed during the conceptual design phase, is to
provide the structure, policies, and procedures to foster the optimum management of projects and activities needed
for system development and implementation (Blanchard and Fabrycky 2011).
An effective and agile PSE function can make important contributions to business development for an enterprise or
company. The primary goal of business development activities is to identify new types of business/product/services
which are believed to address existing or potential needs and gaps (new markets), to attract new customers to
existing offerings, and to break into existing markets. PSE’s end-to-end view of the life cycle can support market
development by intelligence gathering, feedback on market acceptance or rejection, strategic analysis, and
proposition development and campaign development. Finally, PSE should encourage the consideration of several
factors within the new product development which may enhance market development. For example, in
well-established companies, business development can often include setting up strategic alliances with other,
third-party companies. In these instances, the companies may leverage each others expertise and/or intellectual
property to improve the probability for identifying, researching, and bringing to market new businesses and new
products. See (Sørensen 2012).
Supply Chain Management & Distribution Channel Management

PSE provides the following information to the supply chain management function in an enterprise:
• product specifications (including intended uses of the product),
• product acceptance criteria (for accepting delivery of the product from the supplier),
• product testing and qualification plans and procedures, including which ones are responsibility of the supplier and
which ones are responsibility of the acquirer,
• interface specifications associated with each product,
• supplier certification criteria (including a list of pre-certified suppliers), and
• feedback on quality of products delivered by suppliers.
Supply chain management will, as necessary, manage the identification and certification of qualified suppliers with
the concurrence of, and coordination with, systems engineering and product engineers.
PSE provides the following information to the distribution channel management function in the enterprise:
• product specifications (including intended uses of the product),
• product user manuals (including installation and maintenance documentation),

• product packaging (for safe delivery of product and for display in retail channels),
• product qualification data (to prove that product meets its design requirements),
• product certification data (to prove product is certified for safe and secure operation),
• user support instructions, and
• operator certification criteria.
Distribution channel management will, as necessary, manage the identification and certification of qualified
distributors with the concurrence of, and coordination with, systems engineering and product engineers.
Capability Management & Operations Management

Capability is defined in various ways, but each definition is consistent with the notion of "the ability to do something
useful." Products and services are acquired by end users to enable and improve their operational capability to let
them do something useful, whether in a military context (e.g., weapon systems improve the capability to conduct
effective military operations), or a social context (e.g., a car may improve the ability to satisfy the transport needs of
a family). Users acquire products (e.g., military equipment, cars, “productized” service offerings from airlines and
taxi companies, etc.) to contribute to satisfying their capability needs.
Capability management involves identifying and quantifying capabilities (existing, new, or modified) that will be
needed to meet enterprise goals, as well as selecting a coherent set of product and services across all components of
capability that will be integrated to provide the needed capabilities. So normally, requirements for "product systems"
are derived from capability management. Capability management is likely to include trade-off processes to make the
best use of existing products or low-risk evolutions of them, and conversely identifying when a capability need can
only be satisfactorily met by a new-generation product, or even a new type of product altogether. In some cases, new
offered products or disruptive technologies (e.g., jet engine, nuclear weapons, and internet) create opportunities for
new or improved capabilities, in which case capability management focuses on ensuring that all needed components
of capability are put in place to exploit the opportunity provided by the new product or technology. See Capability
Engineering.
Operations management uses an integrated set of product systems to deliver value to the enterprise and its
stakeholders. Operations management involves bringing new product systems into operation, normally while
maintaining business continuity, so transition plans and relevant metrics are critical; next, operations management
addresses some of the following: working up to full operational efficiency across all components of capability,
coping with incidents, contingency plans to deal with major disruptions, adjusting the system to cope with new ways
of working and to deliver new services to meet new enterprise requirements and accommodate new product systems
entering service, and eventually planning transitions out of service or major in-service upgrades. PSE supports
operations management by defining all dependencies for successful operation on other systems and services, and by
providing ongoing engineering support for spares and repairs, obsolescence management, and system upgrades.
Systems engineering in the in-service phase has been analyzed (Elliott et al. 2008) and is best viewed as the same
basic systems engineering process conducted at a much higher tempo (Kemp and Linton, 2008) and requiring
detailed understanding of constraints imposed by the current environment and usage. Configuration management and
configuration status accounting during operation is very important for high value and high integrity systems to
ensure that any changes are designed to fit the "as-is" system, which may be significantly different from the
"as-originally intended" specification and design.
Product Engineering, Assembly, Integration, & Test

Product engineering typically results in an engineering model that is used as the “blueprint” for assembling,
integrating, and testing (AIT) a product system. These AIT activities may be performed on prototype versions, as
well as final production versions to be delivered to end users. There is significant experience in domain specific
industries in performing AIT for complex products. Unfortunately, very little is written in the general literature.
Wasson (2006) and de Jong (2008) cover some of these aspects. See also System Integration and System
Verification.
For software products, the collection of code modules are integrated via some form of integration program (typically
called “make”). The integrated modules are then subjected to tests to exercise the various potential paths through the
software. Since software can be easily changed, it is common to use some form of regression testing based upon test
suites in order to verify software correctness. Another common means of testing is by fault injection as described by
Voas and McGraw (1998).
Manufacturing, Test, & Certification

Systems engineers usually work with manufacturing indirectly through the electrical and mechanical design teams.
There are times in the development cycle when a direct interface and working relationship between systems
engineering and manufacturing is appropriate and can improve the probability of program and system success. Early
in the program the system concept must be examined to determine if it is manufacturable. The requirements and the
concept design should be reviewed with the manufacturing engineers to obtain an assessment of the risks associated
with the production of the system. If substantial risks are identified, then actions that improve the manufacturing
capabilities of the organization, modify the design, and perhaps change the requirements may be needed to reduce
the identified risks to acceptable levels. Manufacturing prototypes or proof of manufacture (POM) units may be
necessary to reduce the risk and to demonstrate readiness to proceed with the design and the system development.
Similarly, the systems engineers must establish that the system will be testable early in the product development
phase. The requirements should be mapped to verification methods of inspection, analysis, demonstration, and test
before they are released to the design team. All requirements mapped to test must be examined to determine the test
methods and the risk associated with accomplishing the necessary tests as part of the product qualification,
acceptance, and release process. Where risks are identified, the systems engineers must work with the test engineers
to develop the necessary test capabilities.
Product Delivery & Product Support

Most products live much longer in the usage phase than in the development phase. The costs associated with product
support are usually greater than the cost of developing the product. These two facts make it very important for the
product systems engineer to consider the product delivery and support as part of the earliest activities during
development. The design of the product dictates the maintenance and support that will be required. The systems
requirements are the first means of influencing the design to achieve the desired product support. If maintenance,
reliability, and support requirements have not been defined by the customer, then the systems engineer must define
these to achieve the support methods and costs that the customer, users, and the organization responsible for support
will find financially acceptable.
References
Works Cited
de Jong, I. 2008. Integration and Test Strategies for Complex Manufacturing Machines: Integration and Testing
Combined in a Single Planning and Optimization Framework. Saarbrücken, Germany: Verlag.
Elliott, B. et al. INCOSE UK Chapter Working Group on Applying Systems Engineering to In-Service Systems,
Final Report. Somerset, UK: INCOSE UK Chapter Working Group. 2008. Accessed November 11, 2014 at INCOSE
UK http:/ / www. incoseonline. org. uk/ Documents/ Groups/ InServiceSystems/ is_tr_001_final_report_final_1_0.
pdf.
Kemp, D., and R. Linton. 2008. "Service Engineering." Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Symposium of
the International Council on Systems Engineering, June 15-19, 2008, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
CMMI Product Team. CMMI for Development Version 1.3 (CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033). 2010. Pittsburgh, PA:
Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. Accessed on 10 Nov 2014 at Software Engineering
Institute Library http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=9661
Sørensen, H.E. 2012. Business Development: a market-oriented perspective. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley &
Sons.
Voas, J.M., and G. McGraw. 1998. Software Fault Injection. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Primary References
de Jong, I. 2008. Integration and Test Strategies for Complex Manufacturing Machines: Integration and Testing
Combined in a Single Planning and Optimization Framework. Saarbrücken, Germany: Verlag.
Voas, J.M., and G. McGraw. 1998. Software Fault Injection. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Phillips, F.Y. 2001. Market-Oriented Technology Management: Innovating for Profit in Entrepreneurial Times, 1st
ed. New York, NY, USA: Springer.

Product Systems Engineering Key Aspects

Acquired Products versus Offered

Products
The emphasis for traditional systems engineering (TSE)
is in the provisioning of products and related services The "Product Systems Engineering" knowledge area is graciously
that meet stakeholder needs and requirements. For sponsored by PPI.
acquired products, an acquirer specifies the needs and
requirements, selects a supplier for development and provisioning, and then receives the needed products and
services. The acquirer, after acceptance, usually owns, operates, and maintains the product and the support systems
supplied by the developer. Offered products are provided by suppliers based on opportunities to develop and offer
products and services to potential users of the product based on business objectives usually measured in terms of
value addition to the stakeholder.
In the provisioning of product systems and related services, the enterprise owning and provisioning the product and
services typically makes agreements with other suppliers to also provide elements, methods, and tools that are used
during their entire life cycle. The supplying enterprises, in turn, may make further agreements with suppliers in
regards to building a supply chain. The complexities of dealing with supply chains must be accounted for with
respect to cost, risk, and schedule and thus can have an impact upon product or service maturity. (See articles under
the Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy knowledge area (KA) in Part 5.)
Acquired Products
Specific needs for a product or service typically result in some form of an agreement between the acquirer and a
supplier as specified in the agreement processes of ISO/IEC 15288 (2015). The acquirer specifies the need and
requirements for the properties of the expected product or service and may or may not place specific requirements
upon how the supplier plans to organize their life cycle treatment of the product or system.
The degree of formality involved with the agreement varies and is strongly influenced by whether the customer is a
government entity or a commercial entity. Government contracts usually incorporate strict specifications and other
unique requirements that are rarely found in commercial contracts. Government acquisition agents often specify
design characteristics in addition to functional and performance specifications. Design specifications place
constraints on product systems engineering (PSE) by explicitly defining the details of a product's physical
characteristics. The government acquirer may also specify how the product is to be designed and developed or how it
is to be produced. Government specifications tend to be longer, more detailed, and more complex than functional
specifications and much longer than specifications used in a commercial environment.
When contracting with the government or similar enterprises, the PSE must identify disagreements related to the
meaning of a particular provision in a contract, and work with contracts to get a written resolution of all ambiguities
and issues in the specifications. Failure to do this can lead to legal disputes and government claims of product
substitution which can prevent acceptance of the product system and result in financial penalties.
Developing product systems for government customers requires PSE to do a thorough review and perform internal
coordination within the enterprise to prevent it from submitting proposals that are non-compliant because the
requirements are not fully understood.
Offered Products
Given an opportunity or perceived opportunity, an enterprise may decide to develop and offer products or services to
a broader potential marketplace. The properties of the product or service are often determined through surveying
and/or forecasting the potential market penetration. The supplier determines the structure and operation of an
appropriate life cycle model for achieving the desired results (Pugh 1990).
Supply Chains and Distribution Channels

The supply of products and services to the owner of a product or service that is acquired or offered at various points
during the life cycle is vital to success. It is this wider system-of-interest (WSOI) that is the outsourcing holism that
must be treated properly in order to provide successful products or services. A portrayal of supply chain structure is
provided in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Supply Chain Structure (Lawson 2010). Reprinted with permission of Harold "Bud" Lawson. All other rights are reserved
In Figure 1, it is important to note that in an agreement with a supplier, the outsourcing can involve delivering
complete system description solutions or portions thereof. For example, a supplier could, given a set of stakeholder
requirements developed by the acquirer, develop and supply a system that conforms to the architectural solution. The
supplier in turn can be an acquirer of portions of their delivered results by outsourcing to other suppliers.
In regards to production, the outsourcing agreement with a supplier can vary from total production responsibility to
merely supplying instances of system elements to be integrated by the acquirer. Once again, these suppliers can be
acquirers of portions of their delivery from outsourcing to other suppliers.
In regards to utilization, for non-trivial systems, outsourcing agreements can be made with a supplier to provide for
operational services, for example, operating a health care information system. Further agreements with suppliers can
involve various forms of logistics aimed at sustaining a system product or service or for supplying assistance in the
form of help desks. Once again, suppliers that agree to provide services related to utilization can be acquirers of the
services of other suppliers.
Important to all supply chains is the concept that supplying parties contribute some form of added value to the life
cycle of a system-of-interest. The proper management of a supply chain system asset is a vital part of the operations
of an enterprise. In fact, the supply chain itself is an enterprise system-of-interest that is composed of acquirers and
suppliers as system elements. There is definitely a structure tied together by agreement relationships. Further, the
operation of the supply chain results in an emergent behavior. The supply chain system becomes a vital
infrastructure asset in the system portfolios of enterprises and forms the basis for extended enterprises.
Similar to a supply chain, the distribution channels for a product system can be a complex web of relationships
between the product supplier and various distributors, for example, package delivery companies, warehouses, service
depots, wholesale outlets, retail sales establishments, operator training and certification organizations, and so on. The
nature of the distribution channels could have a significant impact on the architecture or design of a product system.
PSE may need to include special features in the product design to accommodate for the needs of distribution channel
elements, for example, heavy load tie down or lifting brackets, protective shipping packages, retail marketing
displays, product brochures, installation manuals, operator certification packages, training materials, and so on.
Sometimes it may be necessary to create special versions (or instances) of the product for the training of operators
and users for certifying safe or secure operations, for environmental testing and qualification, for product
demonstration and user testing, for patent application, for load testing and scalability demonstrations, and for
interface fit checking and mass balance certification, to name some examples.
Product Lifecycle and Product Adoption Rates

The life cycle of each product follows the typical incremental development phases shown below (Wasson 2006,
59-65). A particular product to be engineered could be preceded by a previous “model” of that product as shown in
the product model life cycle below, and could be superseded later by a newer model of that product. It is worth
noting that there is no standard set of life cycle phases. The example below is one of many ways that the phases can
be structured.
Figure 2. Product Lifecycle as Related to the Product Model Lifecycle (Wasson 2006). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
From an industry perspective, managing a product’s life cycle involves more than just the engineering aspects:
Product lifecycle management (PLM) is the process of managing the entire lifecycle of a product from
its conception through design and manufacture to service and disposal. PLM integrates people, data,
processes and business systems, and provides a product information backbone for companies and their
extended enterprise. (CIMdata 2012)
There are many PLM tools and services available for facilitating the development and management of complicated
product life cycles and especially for product line management (insert link to product line mgmt section here).
Figure 3. Product Lifecycle from an Industry Perspective. (Source: http:/ / commons. wikimedia. org/ wiki/
File:Product%E2%80%99s_lifecycle. jpg#filelinks Accessed February 6, 2012. NIST Programs of the Manufacturing Engineering
Laboratory, Released by US Federal Government, Public Domain)
The product and product model life cycles are driven by the product adoption rate, illustrated below, that is
commonly experienced by most engineered products (Rogers 2003). As products reach market saturation (i.e., on the
down slope of the curve below) then there would typically be a new, upgraded version of the product ready for
delivery to the marketplace. PSE serves a critical role in determining the best timing for delivery of this new version
and the set of features and functions that would be of the greatest value at that time.
Figure 4. Rogers Innovation Adoption Curve. (Source: http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ File:Diffusionofideas. PNG Accessed
February 6, 2012, Released by Tungsten, Public Domain)
Integrated Product Teams and Integrated Product Development

Product systems as discussed throughout this KA mandate the participation of different disciplines for their success
during their entire lifecycle from concept to product disposal or retirement. Rapid technology innovations and
market pressures in the mid '90s demanded development process (mostly input-output serial) to shorten their
development time and development cost, and to improve product quality to remain competitive. For commercial
enterprises, the typical development times of 18-24 months to deploy new products into markets of the '90s have in
many cases been reduced to 6-12 months and even 3-6 months for the highly competitive leading edge information
technology products.
An initial response to these pressures was concurrent engineering. Concurrent engineering is “... a systematic
approach to the integrated, concurrent design of products and their related processes, including manufacturing and
support to cause developers, from the outset to consider all elements of the product lifecycle from conception
through disposal, including quality, cost, schedule and end user requirements." This definition has evolved into the
integrated product development (IPD) as more descriptive of this concurrency to describe the continuous integration
of the entire product team, including engineering, manufacturing, test, and support through the life cycle. Later, as
the importance of the process was recognized, the terminology was modified to integrated product and process
development or IPPD (INCOSE 2012).
The INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook v. 3.2.2 provides a good description of the IPT and IPDT process; the
different types of IPDT; the steps in organizing and running an IPDT; good examples of IPDT, particularly for
acquired systems; and a good discussion on IPDT pitfalls to avoid. (INCOSE 2012)
IPD/IPPD helps plan, capture, execute, and evaluate programs to help design, test, build, deliver, and support
products that satisfy diverse stakeholder requirements. IPD/IPPD outlines the necessary infrastructure needed to
deploy, maintain, evaluate and continuously improve processes and tools by aligning people (IPTs) and processes to
realize product goals (customer satisfaction). The implementation of Integrated Product Development Processes
(IPDP) requires an integrated approach for program planning and generally includes the following: Business
Strategy, Program Management and Control, Project Planning, Product Requirements and Architecture
Development, Product Design and Development, Production and Deployment, Product Verification and Validation,
and Operations and Maintenance Support.
At each development stage, there is a decision gate that helps decide if the IPDP is feasible to enter the next stage of
product development. IPD utilizes multi-functional IPTs to optimize the individual product and processes to meet
overall cost and performance objectives. IPTs are a cross-functional group of people typically including
representatives of all the relevant stakeholders in the project, who are brought together for delivering an integrated
product to an external or internal customer using relevant IPDP. The main function of the IPTs is to ensure the
business, technical and economical integrity and overall success of the product that is delivered to its eventual
customer. IPTs carry out tailored IPDPs and follow relevant SE processes to deliver products that satisfy customer
needs, overcomes external constraints, and adheres to the overall program strategy.
In the case of commercial enterprises, product development is tightly coupled with business strategies (short and
long term), stakeholder value added measured in terms of return on investments (ROI), market presence/coverage,
and other strategies as defined by the business objectives. Thus, product integration teams include strategic planners,
business managers, financial managers, market managers, quality assurance managers, customer representatives, and
end-users, as well as other disciplines required for acquired products. Phillips (2001), Annachino (2003), and Morse
(2007) provide good discussions on this topic.
Role of Architectures, Requirements, and Standards

The architectural properties of a product system are influenced by the concerns of the various stakeholders as
indicated in the ISO/IEC 42010 standard (ISO/IEC 2011). The stakeholders have various views that they express
based on their specific perspective. These views are vital in establishing requirements and are inputs to those
responsible for defining the functions, structures, and relationships needed to achieve the desired product or service.
A number of stakeholders have been identified in the discussions of product systems. It would be possible to identify
a set of important stakeholders based on the life cycle thinking provided by the ISO/IEC 15288 standard (2015), for
example, one such set could consist of owners, conceivers, developers, producers, users, and maintainers as
discussed by Lawson (2010). As mentioned earlier, these stakeholders should cooperate at all stages of the life cycle
in specifying requirements, verifying that the requirements are met, and validating that the products produced
provide needed capabilities.
In addition to the two standards that have been identified, there are a variety of standards related to specialty aspects
of products, such as safety and security, as well as standards that are applicable for project management and life
cycle considerations, such as requirements and quality management.
Role of Modeling, Simulation, Prototyping, and Experimentation

Modeling, simulation, prototyping, and experimentation are techniques that have the purpose of improving
stakeholder knowledge and shared understanding about aspects of the system to de-risk system development and
operation before heavy commitment of time and funds. Examples of this are found below:
• Understanding future needs: “Warfighting experiments are the heart of the Army's warfighting requirements
determination process. Progressive and iterative mixes of high fidelity constructive, virtual, and live simulations
using real soldiers and units in relevant, tactically competitive scenarios provide Army leaders with future
operational capability insights" (US Army 2012),
• Simulation is used to predict and optimize aspects of system performance for which there are good mathematical
or logical models before committing the final physical design, and also to verify and validate the system design in
scenarios where physical testing is too difficult, dangerous, or expensive, for example, checking the performance
envelope of military systems in a wide range of engagement scenarios where test firing thousands of rounds to get
statistically valid data is clearly unaffordable, ensuring that the safety features in a nuclear power station will
operate correctly in a wide range of stressing scenarios, etc.,
• Prototyping (physical and virtual) is used in a wide variety of ways to check out aspects of system performance,
usability, utility, and to validate models and simulations as part of the iterative process of converging on a final
design,
• In a manufacturing context, the first units produced are often “prototypes” intended to make sure the production
process is working properly before committing to high rate production, and are often not shipped to end users, but
used for intensive testing to qualify the design, and
• Simulation is also used extensively for training and marketing purposes. For training, an accurate model of the
human machine interface and representation of the operational context allows operators to do most of their
training without putting operational hours on the real system enabling them to learn emergency procedures for
combat and accident scenarios in a safe and repeatable environment; for example, airline and military pilots now
train mainly on simulators. System simulators of various levels of fidelity are used to familiarize customers and
end users with the potential characteristics and benefits of the system, available options and trade-offs, and
integration issues early in the development and acquisition process.
All of these methods use a variety of physical and mathematical representations of the system and its environment so
modeling is an enabler for simulation, prototyping, and experimentation.
Increasing Role of Software in Product Functionality

An important trend in commercial products is the increasing importance of software in an increasingly wide range of
products. Everything from phones, cameras, cars, test gear, and medical equipment now has essential functionality
implemented in software. Software has had an increasing role in providing the desired functionality in many
products. The embedding of software in many types of products accounts for increasing portions of product
functionality. In tangible products such as cars, software helps improve functionality and usability (cruise control,
climate control, etc.). In intangible products such as insurance, software helps in improving operational efficiency,
data accessibility, etc.
The movement toward the internet of “things” where sensing and activating functions are incorporated is now
starting to permeate. The use of various software products in proving service is also described in the Service Systems
Engineering article.
Recent advancements in IT and software have assisted in their increased use in PSE. Although software development
is already a very complex field, the role of software in the development and functionality of products is growing
larger each day.
There is a need to broaden the horizons of software engineers to think of problem solving not only in software terms,
but also using the systems thinking approach. For this purpose, software engineers need to be able to think critically
about the problem and also the possible solutions to the problem or opportunity and its implication for business
objectives.
Product Integration and Interface Control

Integration is "the set of activities that bring together smaller units of a system into larger units" (Eisner 2008).
Products may consist of several systems, subsystems, assemblies, parts, etc., which have to work together as a whole
to deliver the offered product’s functionalities at specified performance levels in the intended operations
environment. Product integration entails not only the working together of hardware and software components, but
also the organization, processes, people, facilities, and the resources for the manufacturing, distribution,
maintenance, customer support, sales channels, etc. Grady (2010) groups the above information into three
fundamental integration components: functional organization, product integration, and process integration.
PSE plays an important role to ensure well defined interfaces, interactions, relationships, information exchange, and
processes requirements between product components. These requirements are baseline, documented, traced, verified,
and validated for the end-to-end Product integration and to maintain and ensure product offering integrity during its
life cycle. The systems engineering hierarchical decomposition level allows requirement definition and allocations at
different levels of abstraction to define the building blocks of the product architecture; these building blocks are
assigned to integrated product development teams (IPDTs) for detailed design and development. The IPDTs or the
systems engineering integration team (SEIT) must interact with all involved players to generate appropriate
architectural block specifications at the lower tier of development for a product’s architectural configuration and
configuration tracking. As the building blocks are put together, interface requirements, information exchange, and
interaction and relationships among entities are verified against the baseline. Once a configuration item has been
built and tested against the baseline, test and verification at higher levels are conducted to obtain the final product
configuration; the final product configuration can only be changed by a formal approval from a configuration control
board (CCB). Note: the acronym CCB is often used to mean the change control board that, in addition to
configuration control, makes decisions of any aspect of a project or an enterprise.
Interface agreements, specifications, and interface designs are usually documented through the interface control
documents (ICD) and the interface design descriptions (IDD); in some instances, depending on the complexity of the
product and the type of internal and/or external interfaces, an interface control working group (ICWG) is created to
analyze and baseline changes to an interface for further recommendation to the CCB.
A configuration item (CI) may be hardware (HWCI), software (SWCI), firmware, subsystems, assemblies,
non-development items, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items, acquirer furnished equipment, and/or processes.
Please see Wasson (2006), Grady (2006), and INCOSE SE Handbook v. 3.2.2 for a more detailed description of
configuration and interface control.
A product may experience hundreds of changes during its life cycle due to new product releases/enhancements,
repair/replacement of parts, upgrades/updates in operating systems, computer infrastructure, software modules,
organizational changes, changes in processes and/or methods and procedures, etc. Thus, strong mechanisms for
bookkeeping and activity control need to be in place to identify, control, audit, account and trace interfaces,
interactions, and relationships between entities that are required to maintain product configuration status (Eisner
2008). The product configuration and CI’s are then controlled through the configuration management process.
Configuration Management and Risk Management

Configuration management (CM) deals with the identification, control, auditing, status accounting, and traceability
aspects of the product, and broadly covers the book-keeping and control activities of the systems engineering process
(Eisner 2001). Any product configuration changes to the baseline (configuration item, operational baseline,
functional baseline, behavior baseline) or product baseline are submitted to a configuration control board (CCB)
through an engineering change request (ECR) and/or a configuration change request (CCR). The CCB then analyzes
the request to understand CI impacts and the feasibility (time and cost) of authorization or rejection of change
request(s). The lack of proper control and tracking of CI and product baselines may result in a loss of features,
functionality, data, interfaces, etc., leading to backtracking and CI version losses which may affect the offered
product. All approved changes will have to be baselined, documented, and tested for backward compatibility and to
ensure compliance with the integrated product functionality. Thus, successful implementation and life cycle
management of the product mandates a highly disciplined CM process that maintains proper control over the product
and its components. Please see the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook v. 3.2.2 (2012) for a detailed
description of the CM Process.
Risk management deals with the identification, assessment, and prioritization of technical, cost, schedule, and
programmatic risks in any system. Almost all engineered systems are designed, constructed, and operated under
some level of risks and uncertainty while achieving multiple, and often conflicting, objectives. As greater
complexities and new technologies are introduced in modern systems, the potential of risks have significantly
increased. Thus, the overall managerial decision-making process should involve an extensive cost-benefit analysis of
all identified, qualified, and evaluated risks (Haimes 2008). Risk management involves the coordinated and most
cost-effective application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of all
identified risks within the systems engineering process. The risk management process requires the involvement of
several disciplines and encompasses empirical, quantitative, and normative judgmental aspects of decision-making.
Furthermore, risk assessment and management should be integrated and incorporated within the broader holistic
approach so technology management can help align the risk management requirements to the overall systems
engineering requirements. Thus, the inclusion of a well defined risk management plan that deals with the analysis of
risks, within the systems engineering master plan is vital for the long term and sustained success of any system
(Blanchard and Fabrycky 2011).
References
Works Cited
Annachino, M. 2003. New Product Development: From Initial Idea to Product Management. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Eisner, H. 2008. Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Grady, J. 2006. System Requirements Analysis. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press.
Haimes, Y. 2008. Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.

Kass, R. 2006. "The logic of warfighting experiments." DOD Command and Control Research Program (CCRP).
August 2006. Accessed 23 April 2013 at http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Kass_Logic.pdf.
Morse, L., and D. Babcock. 2007. Managing Engineering and Technology. International Series in Industrial and
Systems Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Pugh, S. 1990. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Reinertsen, D. 1997. Managing the Design Factory: A Product Developers Tool Kit. New York, NY, USA: Simon &
Schuster Ltd.
Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.
Smith, P., and D. Reinertsen. 1997. Developing products in half the time – new rules, new tools, 2nd ed. Hoboken,
NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
US Army. 2012. "Chapter 2, section A.4" in Army Science and Technology Master Plan. Accessed January 12, 2012.
Available at: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp/c2/P2A4.htm.
Primary References
Eisner, H. 2008. Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Annachino, M. 2003. New Product Development: From Initial Idea to Product Management. Amsterdam,
Haimes, Y. 2008. Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Kass, R. 2006. "The logic of warfighting experiments." DOD Command and Control Research Program (CCRP).
August 2006. Accessed 23 April 2013 at http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Kass_Logic.pdf.
Morse, L., and D. Babcock. 2007. Managing Engineering and Technology. International Series in Industrial and
Systems Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Pugh, S. 1990. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Reinertsen, D. 1997. Managing the Design Factory: A Product Developers Tool Kit. New York, NY, USA: Simon &
Schuster Ltd.
Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
Smith, P., and D. Reinertsen. 1997. Developing products in half the time – new rules, new tools, 2nd ed. Hoboken,
NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
US Army. 2012. "Chapter 2, section A.4" in Army Science and Technology Master Plan. Accessed January 12, 2012.
Available at: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp/c2/P2A4.htm.

Product Systems Engineering Special Activities

Product systems engineering has activities that are

unique to products. This article discusses many of
them.
Readiness Level Assessments The "Product Systems Engineering" knowledge area is graciously
sponsored by PPI.
As a new system is developed, it is essential to verify
and validate that the developed system is mature enough to be released as an operational product or service.
Technology readiness assessments (TRA) are established tools used to qualify technology development and help
make investment decisions within complex development programs in order to deploy systems or elements of
technology to an end user in a timely fashion.
This notion of maturity was formalized by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
(Mankins 1995) and later modified for use by the Department of Defense (DoD), the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL), and the US Department of Energy (DoE), as well as a growing number of non-governmental organizations.
Technology readiness levels (TRL) are a metric developed to summarize the degree of maturity of a technology. The
original NASA TRL scale has nine different levels from the basic principles observed and reported (TRL 1) to
actual systems "flight proven" through successful mission operations (TRL 9). The TRL scale utilized by the DoD is
portrayed in Table 1.
Table 1. Technology Readiness Levels for Assessing Critical Technologies (Mankins 1995).
Released by the Advanced Concept Office, Office of Space Access and Technology, NASA.
Technology + 1. Basic + 2. + 3. An + 4. + 5. + 6. Prototype + 7. Prototype + 8. System + 9. System Actual
Readiness principles Technology analytical Component Component demonstration demonstration qualified proven application
Level observed concept and validation in validation in in a relevant in an through test through of the
and and/or experimental laboratory relevant environment. operational and successful technology
reported. application critical environment. environment. environment. demonstration. mission in its final
formulated. function operations. form and
and/or under
characteristic mission
proof of conditions,
concept. such as
those
encountered
in
operational
test and
evaluation.
The utilization of TRLs has an impact on the structure and operation of life cycles as described in Part 3; they allow
better management and control of risks inherent with technology, as well as better control of costs and the schedule
of program development. However, TRLs do not provide an assessment of the programmatic influence on a TRL,
technology criticality and priority, software aging and readiness context, as pointed out by Smith (2005). While
TRLs have proven to be useful in evaluating a technology’s performance, as demonstrated in the laboratory or in a
test environment, they do not inform one whether or not the technology product can actually be produced in an
affordable manner. The concept of manufacturing readiness levels (MRL) has been incorporated to expand the TRL
idea so that it can incorporate producibility concerns. The MRL approach addresses questions such as the level of
technology reproducibility, the cost of production, and technology manufacturing production environment early in
the development phase (GAO 2003, DoD 2011).
Figure 1. Technology Readiness Levels and Their Relationship to System Acquisition Milestones (Morgan 2008). Released by the
Manufacturing Technology Division of the United States Air Force.
Readiness levels are an active research area within academia and government agencies in regards to the integration
of technology components into complex systems (integration readiness levels (IRLs)) to address interface maturity
among existing and maturing technology developments. TRLs apply to the critical enabling technologies, which are
usually embodied at the subsystem, assembly level, or system component level. Systems readiness levels (SRL) are
used when going from individual technologies to the whole system. The SRL model is a function of the individual
TRLs in a system and their subsequent integration points with other technologies, the IRL (Sauser 2006).
Another maturity aspect is related to the provisioning of products that are readily available and referred to as
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS). Such products, be they hardware, software, or a mixture of both, have hopefully
achieved the degree of maturity so that those acquiring them can rely upon their operational properties and that the
documentation of the COTS products is sufficient to provide the proper guidance in their use.
The PSE should realize that the TRL assessment for COTS changes dramatically if the operational environment or
other requirements are imposed that exceed the design limits of the COTS product (e.g., operations at very high or
very cold temperatures, high shock, or vibration levels).
Product Certification
Product certifications are both domain and product specific, and typically relate to human safety and health, the need
to meet a specific government regulation, or are required by underwriters for insurance purposes. Certifications are
performed by a third party (independent of the developer) who provides a guarantee of the quality, safety, and
reliability of the product to the customer or user.
The INCOSE SE Handbook defines product certification as "the process of certifying that a certain product has
passed performance or quality assurance tests or qualification requirements stipulated in regulations such as a
building code or nationally accredited test standards, or that it complies with a set of regulations governing quality or
minimum performance requirements." (INCOSE 2012)
The INCOSE SE Handbook also defines four methods for verification: inspection, analysis, demonstration, and
testing (INCOSE 2012). In addition, it defines certification as a fifth verification method, which is defined as
verification against legal or industrial standards by an outside authority without direction to that authority as to how
the requirements are to be verified. For example, electronic devices require a CE certification in Europe, and a UL
certification in the US and Canada (INCOSE 2012).
The best known certification is the airworthiness certification, which relates to the safety of flight for aircraft. In the
US, the test for this certification is performed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Government
certifications are also common in the medical systems field where the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is the
primary certification agency. Some certifications are based on standards defined by technical societies, such as the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The combination of the technical standards and a certification
allows product developers to perform certifications that meet government standards without having the government
directly involved in the process.
There are equivalent government organizations in other countries and for other regulated areas, such as
communications, building safety, nuclear systems, transportation systems to include ships, trains and automobiles,
environmental impact, and energy use. Systems engineers must be aware of the certifications that are required for the
domain and product being developed. Certification agencies must be involved early in the development effort to
ensure the necessary certifications are included in the system requirements, the system development plan, and the
funding provided to accomplish the development. When system changes and upgrades are necessary, the systems
engineers must determine if product re-certification is necessary and include it in the plans and funding for the
system upgrade.
Enabling Product Certifications

There may be other certifications for enabling products that must be considered and appreciated by PSE, such as an
operator certification of airplane pilots to ensure flight safety, and certification of nuclear plant operators to ensure
prevention or mitigation of nuclear radiation effects. An example of this is shown in the certification program by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC):
In support of NERC’s mission, the System Operator Certification Program’s mission is to ensure that
employers have a workforce of system operators that meet minimum qualifications. These minimum
qualifications are set through internationally recognized processes and procedures for agencies that
certify persons. The Certification Program promotes excellence in the area of system operator
performance and encourages system operators to be inquisitive and informed. (NERC 2012)
Production qualification testing (PQT) is another type of certification which DAU (2005) describes as:
A technical test completed prior to the full-rate production (FRP) decision to ensure the effectiveness of
the manufacturing process, equipment, and procedures. This testing also serves the purpose of
providing data for the independent evaluation required for materiel release so that the evaluator can
address the adequacy of the materiel with respect to the stated requirements. These tests are conducted
on a number of samples taken at random from the first production lot, and are repeated if the process or
design is changed significantly and when a second or alternative source is brought online.
Security certification and accreditation (C&A) is often required for the deployment of computing and networking
equipment in a classified environment. Facility certification may be required to ensure that a building housing the
equipment can provide the proper environment for safe and efficient operation of the equipment. High-altitude
electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) certification may be required to ensure that a building and its equipment can
withstand the effects of HEMP from nuclear weapons. A similar type of certification to HEMP is TEMPEST testing
to ensure that sensitive electronic emissions are not allowed to leave high security facilities. TEMPEST is a code
name referring to investigations and studies of compromising emission, and is not an acronym.
Technology Planning and Insertion

Technology planning can be an enterprise function or a program function. Technology planning as an enterprise
function typically occurs on an annual basis to determine the funding necessary for independent research and
development in the coming year. Technology planning as a program function occurs early in the program and often
continues throughout the life of the system. The design of the product system is highly dependent on the availability
of technologies that have acceptable risks and that meet the customer's cost, schedule, and performance
requirements. These critical technologies will only be available when necessary if the systems engineers perform
concept designs, technology assessments, and trade studies that define the critical technologies and the capabilities
necessary before the system development activities that will use the critical technologies begin.
The MITRE Systems Engineering Guide (MITRE 2011) provides the following definition for technology planning:
Technology Planning is the process of planning the technical evolution of a program or system to
achieve its future vision or end-state. Technology planning may include desired customer outcomes,
technology forecasting and schedule projections, technology maturation requirements and planning,
and technology insertion points. The goal is a defined technical end-state enabled by technology
insertion over time.
Systems engineers who participate in technical planning must understand the future vision and system requirements,
and relate these to the current and expected future technologies that can be applied to the system design during
current development stages, as well as for potential future upgrades to the system. To do this, systems engineers
must acquire and maintain knowledge of the existing and developing technology in their design domain. The systems
engineer will also provide the essential connection between the system user and research communities to provide
alignment between the technology developers and the system designers.
Technology planning and insertion usually requires that the systems engineer perform technology readiness
assessments that rate the maturity levels and the risks associated with the planned technologies. Immature, risky
technologies require risk reduction activities that include prototyping and product development and test activities
that provide quantification of the capabilities and risks. The risk reduction activities provide the data necessary to
assess and update the design to reduce its risk.
Product Road Mapping and Release Planning

Product road maps provide an outline that shows when products are scheduled for release and include an overview of
the product's primary and secondary features. Both internal and external product road maps should be created. The
form of the road map will depend on the development methodology being used. Waterfall, iterative, and spiral
development models result in different road maps and release plans. The systems engineer must be an integral
member of the team that creates road maps. Requirements should be mapped onto each of the planned releases. Test
plans must be adapted to the development model and the release plans.
Product road maps should be aligned with the technology road maps that are applicable to the product. Technology
maturity should be accomplished before the technologies are included in the product development plans and the road
map for the product release that includes those technologies.
Product road maps are essential for software intensive systems that have many releases of software and capability
upgrades. The identification of the requirements, the test plans, and the features provided for each release are an
essential driver of the product development process. Clear definition of these items can make the difference between
delivering the capabilities the customer is looking for and will support, or a product that fails to meet the needs of the
customer and is abandoned.
Intellectual Property Management

Systems engineers must also manage intellectual property as part of their job. Existing systems engineering literature
rarely covers this topic. However, there are many textbooks and management related literature that provide
additional information, such as “Intellectual Property Rights for Engineers” (Irish 2005). Intellectual property may be
considered as intangible output of the rational thought process that has some intellectual or informational value and
is normally protected via using copyrights, patents, and/or trade secrets (Irish 2005). Listed below are some of the
more important intellectual property types with brief explanations:
• Proprietary Information: Any information which gives a company (or enterprise) an advantage over its
competitors is usually proprietary.
• Patents: A patent is the principle mechanism for protecting rights for an invention or discovery. In exchange for a
full disclosure of how to practice it, the issuing government will grant the right to exclude others from practicing
the invention for a limited amount of time, usually 15 to 20 years (in the US, a patent usually lasts for 17 years
from the date of issue).
• Design Patents: In some countries, these are referred to by the more appropriate term design registrations or some
other name. They protect rights in ornamental designs, provided the designs are new and inventive, i.e.,
non-obvious at the time they are made. In the US, the maximum length of a design patent is 14 years.
• Trademarks: A trademark identifies the source of origin for goods in commerce, and is not stronger than the
actual use to which it has been put to and the diligence with which it has been protected from infringement,
encroachment, or dilution. Under some circumstances, a trademark may be registered with governmental
agencies. Among a company's most valuable assets is the corporate name, which also is the company's primary
trademark.
• Copyrights: A claim of copyright protects such works as writings, musical compositions, and works of art from
being copied by others, i.e., from plagiarism. A notice of claim of copyright must be made in the manner
prescribed by law at the time of a protected work’s first publication.
Parts, Materials, and Process Management

The consequences of mission failure or an inability to deploy the system on time due to parts, materials, and process
(PM&P) issues needs to be clearly understood by the systems engineer since these elements are fundamental to the
overall mission reliability and program success. PM&P management is especially important in harsh environments
(like outer space and underwater) and in situations where system failure can have catastrophic impacts on public
safety (like nuclear power, bridges and tunnels, and chemical processing plants).
Generally, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) engaged in the design and fabrication of electronic systems
have a documented policy that deals with PM&P, sometimes in the form of a PM&P Management Manual. The
elements of a PM&P control program include things such as
• PM&P requirements that apply to a system;
• the generation number of a program or project approved parts list (PAPL);
• the appointment of a PM&P control board (PMPCB);

• the development of a part stress derating policy and a part parameter derating policy for end of life use; and
• a definition of the minimum qualifications, quality controls, and screening requirements for parts.
PM&P management guidance is provided by MIL-HDBK-512 (DoD 2001) and ANSI/AIAA R-100 (2001), which
identify the overall management process elements of a PM&P program. Additional issues to be addressed by PM&P
include the following: hazardous materials, rare earth elements, conflict materials, and counterfeit materials.
References
Works Cited
ANSI/AIAA. 2001. Recommended Practice for Parts Management. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), ANSI/AIAA R-100A-2001.
DAU. 2005. Glossary of Defense Acquisition Acronyms & Terms, 12th ed. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense
Acquisition University (DAU)/US Department of Defense (DoD). Available at: http:/ / www. dau. mil/ pubscats/
PubsCats/13th_Edition_Glossary.pdf.
DoD. 2000. Department of Defense Directive (DoD-D) 5000.01: The Defense Acquisition System. Arlington, VA,
USA: US Department of Defense, Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L). Available at: http:/ / www. dtic.
mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500001p.pdf.
DoD. 2001. Department of Defense Handbook: Parts Management. Arlington, VA, USA: Department of Defense
(DoD). MIL-HDBK-512A.
DoD. 2011 Department of Defense Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance, Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)), May 2011.
FAA. 2011. Airworthiness Certificates Overview. Washington, DC, USA: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Available at: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/aw_overview/.
GAO. 2003. Defense acquisitions: Assessments of Major Weapon Programs, GAO-03-476, US Government
Accountability Office, May 2003.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
Irish, V. 2005. Intellectual Property Rights for Engineers, 2nd ed. Herts, UK: Institution of Engineering and
Technology (IET).
Mankins, J. 1995. Technology Readiness Levels—A White Paper. Washington, DC, USA: Advanced Concepts
Office, Office of Space Access and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
MITRE. 2011. "Systems Engineering Guide." Accessed September 11, 2012. Available at: http:/ / www. mitre. org/
work/systems_engineering/guide/.
Morgan, J 2007. Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) and Manufacturing Readiness Assessments (MRAs).
ADA510027 Air Force Research Lab Wright-patterson Afb Oh Manufacturing Technology Directorate. September
2007. Accessed 06 November 2014 at Defense Technical Information Center http:/ / www. dtic. mil/ get-tr-doc/
pdf?AD=ADA510027
NERC. 2012. "North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)." Accessed September 11, 2012. Available
at: http://www.nerc.com.
Sauser, B., D. Verma, J. Ramirez-Marquez, and R. Gove. 2006. From TRL to SRL: The Concept of System Readiness
Levels. Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), April 7-8, 2006, Los Angeles,
CA, USA.
Smith, J. 2005. An Alternative to Technology Readiness Levels for Non-Developmental Item (NDI) Software.
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, January 3-6, 2005, Island of Hawaii,
USA.
Primary References
Mankins, J. 1995. Technology Readiness Levels—A White Paper. Washington, DC, USA: Advanced Concepts
Office, Office of Space Access and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
MITRE. "Systems Engineering Guide." Available at http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/
Sauser, B., D. Verma, J. Ramirez-Marquez, and R. Gove. 2006. From TRL to SRL: The Concept of System Readiness
Levels. Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), Los Angeles, CA, April 7-8,
2006.
ANSI/AIAA. 2001. Recommended Practice for Parts Management. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), ANSI/AIAA R-100A-2001.
DoD. 2000. Department of Defense Directive (DoD-D) 5000.01: The Defense Acquisition System. Arlington, VA,
USA: US Department of Defense, Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L). Available at: http:/ / www. dtic.
mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500001p.pdf.
DoD. 2001. Department of Defense Handbook: Parts Management. Arlington, VA, USA: Department of Defense
(DoD). MIL-HDBK-512A.
FAA. 2011. "Airworthiness Certificates Overview." Washington, DC, USA: Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). Available at: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/aw_overview/.
Irish, V. 2005. Intellectual Property Rights for Engineers, 2nd ed. Herts, UK: Institution of Engineering and
Technology (IET).
Smith, J. 2005. An Alternative to Technology Readiness Levels for Non-Developmental Item (NDI) Software.
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, January 3-6, 2005, Island of Hawaii,
USA.

624
Knowledge Area: Service Systems

Engineering
Service Systems Engineering

Lead Authors: Ricardo Pineda, Bud Lawson, Richard Turner
The growth of services in the ever-evolving global economy has brought much needed attention to service science
and service systems engineering (SSE). Research focuses on developing formal methodologies to understand
enterprise-end-user (customer) interactions from both socio-economic and technological perspectives, and to enable
value co-creation and productivity improvements. Service systems require trans-disciplinary collaborations between
society, science, enterprises, and engineering. Service transactions are customized and personalized to meet a
particular customer need. This requires a disciplined and systemic approach among stakeholders and resources to
emphasize end-user satisfaction in the design and delivery of the service (Hipel et al. 2007; Tien and Berg 2003;
Vargo and Akaka 2009; Maglio and Spohrer 2008; Maglio et al. 2010).
Topics
• Service Systems Background
• Fundamentals of Services
• Properties of Services
• Scope of Service Systems Engineering
• Value of Service Systems Engineering
• Service Systems Engineering Stages
Introduction
New Service Development (NSD) has usually been a proprietary process closely guarded by product businesses and
service businesses for their competitive advantage. Traditional systems engineering practices have been primarily
applied in aerospace and defense sectors while SSE practices have been applied by information and communications
technologies (ICT) service providers (Booz, Allen, and Hamilton 1982; Johnson et al. 2000; Eppinger 2001;
Freeman 2004; Whitten and Bentley 2007; AT&T SRP 2008; Lin and Hsieh 2011).
These early efforts were, and in some instances remain, very important for product and service businesses. However,
the growth and ubiquity of the World Wide Web, advances in computer science and ICT, and business process
management through “social networking,” support the realization of closely interrelated service systems. Product
business (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) and service business distinctions are going away (Spohrer 2011).
These services, or service innovations, must take into account social aspects, governance processes, business
processes, operational processes, as well as design and development processes. The customer, service provider,
product provider, and intermediaries need to collaborate toward the optimization of customer experiences and
customer provided value (through co-creation). The interrelations among different stakeholders and resources require
that methodologies, processes, and tools be dynamically tailored and delivered for either foreseen or newly
discovered services to rapidly adapt to changing enterprise and end-user environments.

Even in the case of static, predetermined, interaction rules, the major problems faced in the definition, design, and
implementation of services have been in understanding the integration needs among different systems, system
entities, stakeholders, and in defining the information flows required for the governance, operations, administration,
management and provisioning (OAM&P) of the service. (Maier 1998; Jamshidi 2008; Pineda 2010; Luzeaux and
Ruault 2013). Thus, the 21st century technology-intensive services are “information-driven, customer centric,
e-oriented, and productivity-focused" as discussed by Chesbrough (2011), Chang (2010), Tien and Berg (2003), and
Hipel et al. (2007). A detailed discussion of these characteristics is given in the Value of Service Systems
Engineering article within this KA.
Service Systems Engineering Knowledge Area Topics

This knowledge area (KA) describes best practices in SSE during the service design process and outlines current
research on methods, processes, and tools. It does not attempt to describe the initial efforts and research in service
science that were proposed and introduced by International Business Machines (IBM) (Maglio and Spohrer 2008),
but it does recognize their leadership in championing these concepts in undergraduate and graduate curricula.
The rest of the KA is organized in the following way:
The Service Systems Background article presents some background on the transition from a manufacturing economy
toward the service economy brought by the World Wide Web through co-creation of end-user value. It describes
how this transformation is impacting industries, such as healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation,
supply chain, environmental, etc. The article also describes the scope of the SSE discipline's contributions to meeting
the needs of the service sector companies in strategic differentiation and operational excellence (Chang 2010) by
pointing out some differences between product-oriented systems engineering and SSE.
The Fundamentals of Services and Properties of Services articles take the reader through a general discussion of
services and current attempts to classify different types of services, in particular, attention is paid to the properties of
service systems for the service sector, such us transportation, environmental and energy services, consulting services,
healthcare, etc.
The Scope of Service Systems Engineering and Value of Service Systems Engineering articles cover the value of
SSE, defining (or using when available) service architecture frameworks, and the stages of the service development
process from concept to life cycle management.
The Service Systems Engineering Stages article summarizes the major SSE process activities that need to be carried
out during the service design process and the needed output (work products) in each of the service design process
stages.
Service Innovation and Value-Co-creation

Service innovation has several dimensions. Service innovation can come about through the creation of a service
concept which is sufficiently different that it is not merely an improved service, but in reality is a new service
concept. To maintain the rigor and value of innovation, it is necessary to distinguish between an improved service,
which may generate some additional value, and a truly new and innovative service concept, which may generate a
great deal of value. Dr. Noriaki Kano, a renowned quality management guru, has suggested that every service
concept has its inherent attributes and we should strive to continuously improve upon these; but this is not innovation
(Kano 1996).
To be innovative, the change in a value proposition cannot be incremental, but it must be enough to significantly
impact customer and competitor behavior (e.g., new market creation). Value innovation involves a shift in
perspective of customer needs that requires a rethinking of what service value proposition is delivered (Kano 1996).
Innovation can also come through a significant change in the way or the reason the customer is engaged or
connected. In a service value chain the customer may well change from being just a receiver of service value to
becoming a co-creator, or an active participant in the design and delivery, i.e., service transaction of service value. At
the retail level, when a customer designs the time, route, and price selection for a plane ticket purchased online, he is
co-creating the service. Value innovation involves a shift in perspective of customer needs that requires a rethinking
of how a service value proposition is delivered (Bettencourt 2010).
Finally, service innovation can come through significant changes in the way the enterprise is organized to create a
service value proposition from concept through delivery. A considerable improvement in the enterprise structure
and/or governance can be seen as innovation. Value innovation involves a shift in perspective of customer needs that
requires a rethinking of how an enterprise organizes to support a service value proposition.
Continuous improvement can be reasonably planned and predicted while innovation and breakthroughs cannot. The
most effective way to obtain innovation and breakthroughs is to encourage the culture, environment, and atmosphere
that are conducive to innovation and breakthroughs. Innovative co-creation requires the integration of people, ideas,
and technology for the purpose of creating value for themselves, their customers, companies, and society.
The lone inventor sees a problem and must work to create the solutions to all dimensions of the problem. Co-creators
see the problem and realize that there may already be several creators, each already having a piece of the solution.
Co-creation embraces the value of things “not invented here” because of the velocity they can bring to ideation and
time to market. This service innovation process is facilitated by modern mass (and at the same time, personal)
communication technology evident in social networking platforms.
Towards a Discipline of Service Systems Engineering

Mindful of the evolution taking place in the global economy and the world markets, it would be futile to attempt
covering all the major advances and the boundless possibilities in the services sector for the rest of the century. The
services sector covers wide areas of application studied in many different fields (e.g., business science, social
science, cognitive science, political science, etc.). The field of service systems, a trans-disciplinary analysis and
study of services, was only introduced 10 to 15 years ago. As a consequence, much of the existing literature on
services and service-innovation is scattered. The main objective of this KA is to document the systems engineering
processes, methodologies, and existing tools as applied to the service design process, and to introduce critical SSE
challenges and research areas.
References
Works Cited
AT&T SRP. 2008. Technical Approach to Service Delivery. General Services Administration, AT&T Bridge
Contract No. GS00Q09NSD0003. Accessed on June 1, 2011. Available at: http:/ / www. corp. att. com/ gov/
contracts/fts_bridge/technical/07_vol_I_section_1.pdf.
Bettencourt, L. 2010. Service Innovation: How to Go from Customer Needs to Breakthrough Services. New York,
McGraw-Hill Professional. July 2010.
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton. 1982. New Products Management for the 1980s. New York, NY, USA: Booz, Allen, and
Hamilton Inc.
Chang, C.M. 2010. Service Systems Management and Engineering: Creating Strategic Differentiation and
Operational Excellence. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Chesbrough, H. 2011. Open Services Innovation: Rethinking Your Business to Grow and Compete in a New Era. San
Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Eppinger, S. 2001. "Innovation at the Speed of Information" Harvard Business Review. 79 (1): 149-158.
Freeman, R.L. 2004. Telecommunication Systems Engineering, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Hipel, K.W., M.M. Jamshidi, J.M. Tien, and C.C. White. 2007. "The Future of Systems, Man, and Cybernetics:
Application Domains and research Methods. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part C:
Applications and Reviews. 37 (5): 726-743.
Jamshidi M, System of Systems Engineering: Innovations for the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY, USA: John
Wiley & Sons. November 2008.
Johnson, S.P., L.J. Menor, A.V. Roth, and R.B. Chase. 2000. "A critical evaluation of the new service development
process: integrating service innovation and service design," in Fitzsimmons, J.A., and M.J. Fitzsimmons (eds.). New
Service Development - Creating Memorable Experiences. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications. p. 1-32.
Kano, N. 1996. Guide to TQM in Service Industry. Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization.
Lin, F.R., and P.S Hsieh. 2011. A SAT View on New Service Development." Service Science. 3 (2): 141-157.
Luzeaux, D. and Ruault. J,. System of Systems. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons. March 2013.
Maglio, P., C. Kieliszewski, and J. Spohrer. 2010. Handbook of Service Science, 1st ed. New York, NY, USA:
Springer Science + Business Media.
Maglio, P., and J. Spohrer. 2008. "Fundamentals of Service Science." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
36 (1): 18-20.
Maier, M.W., 1998. "Architecting Principles for System of Systems." Systems Engineering. 1 (4): 267-284.
Pineda, R. 2010. "Understanding Complex Systems of Systems Engineering." Presented at Fourth General
Assembly, Cartagena Network of Engineering, September 21-24, 2010, Metz, France.
Spohrer, J.C. 2011. "Service Science: Progress & Directions." Presented at International Joint Conference on Service
Science, May 25-27, 2011, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tien, J.M., and D. Berg. 2003. "A Case for Service Systems Engineering." Journal of Systems Science and Systems
Engineering. 12 (1): 13-38.
Vargo, S.L., and R.F. Lusch. 2004. "The Four Service Marketing Myths – Remnants of a Goods-Based
Manufacturing Model." Journal of Service Research. 6 (4): 324-335.
Vargo, S.L., and M.A. Akaka. 2009. "Service-Dominant Logic as a Foundation for Service Science: Clarifications."
Service Science. 1 (1): 32-41.
Whitten, J., and L. Bentley. 2007. Systems Analysis and Design Methods. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.
Primary References
Maglio, P., C. Kieliszewski, and J. Spohrer. 2010. Handbook of Service Science, 1st ed. New York, NY, USA:
Springer Science + Business Media.
AT&T SRP. 2008. Technical Approach to Service Delivery. General Services Administration, AT&T Bridge
Contract No. GS00Q09NSD0003. Accessed on June 1, 2011. Available at: http:/ / www. corp. att. com/ gov/
contracts/fts_bridge/technical/07_vol_I_section_1.pdf.
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton. 1982. New Products Management for the 1980s. New York, NY, USA: Booz, Allen, and
Hamilton Inc.
Eppinger, S. 2001. "Innovation at the Speed of Information." Harvard Business Review. 79 (1): 149-158.
Application Domains and research Methods." IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part C:
Johnson, S.P., L.J Menor, A.V. Roth, and R.B. Chase. 2000. "A critical evaluation of the new service development
process: integrating service innovation and service design," in Fitzsimmons, J.A., and M.J. Fitzsimmons (eds.). New
Service Development - Creating Memorable Experiences. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications. p. 1-32.
Kano, N. 1996. Guide to TQM in Service Industry. Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization.
Lin, F.R., and P.S Hsieh. 2011. A SAT View on New Service Development." Service Science. 3 (2): 141-157.
Luzeaux, D. and Ruault, J. 2013. Systems of Systems, Wiley.
Maier, M.W. 1998. "Architecting Principles for System of Systems." Systems Engineering. 1 (4): 267-284.
36 (1): 18-20.
Pineda, R. 2010. "Understanding Complex Systems of Systems Engineering." Presented at Fourth General
Assembly, Cartagena Network of Engineering, September 21-24, 2010, Metz, France.
Whitten, J., and L. Bentley. 2007. Systems Analysis and Design Methods. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.

Service Systems Background

Economies are pre-disposed to follow a developmental progression that moves them from heavy proportional
reliance on agriculture and mining toward the development of manufacturing, and finally toward more service-based
economic activity. As reported by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) in its
“Science, Technology, and Industry (STI) Forum on The Service Economy":
The reason that we see a services economy today, and gather to talk about it and recognize its
importance is because technology has allowed service industries to gain the operational leverage that
manufacturing achieved 100 years ago. In addition to banks, health systems, telephone and
telecommunications networks, and distribution and retailing firms are further examples of sectors that
have been able to benefit from economies of scale. As a result, we are now living in a world where
global-scale service companies exist for the first time, whereas we have seen global manufacturing
companies for 50 years or more. (OECD 2000, 8)
Evolution Toward Service-Based Economies

The typical industry example given of this progression toward services is the company International Business
Machines (IBM). Even though IBM still produces hardware, they view their business as overwhelmingly
service-oriented wherein hardware plays only an incidental role in their business solutions services; the fastest line of
business growth within IBM has been the business-to-business (B2B) services: information technology (IT); for
example, data centers and call centers; business process outsourcing/re-engineering; systems integration; and
organizational change.
Business to government (B2G) is forecasted to have the fastest growth in the years to come (Spohrer 2011). For
IBM, this trend started in 1989 with the launch of business recovery services; it accelerated with the acquisition of
Price-Waterhouse Coopers Consultants in 2002 and culminated with the 2005 sale of the laptop (ThinkPad)
manufacturing, their last major hardware operation.
IBM exemplifies the services trend which has accelerated in the last 25-30 years and as of 2006, the services
produced by private industry accounted for 67.8% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). The top sub-sectors
included real estate, financial, healthcare, education, legal, banking, insurance, and investment. Production of goods
accounted for 19.8% of GDP. The top product sub-sectors included manufacturing, construction, oil and gas, mining,
and agriculture (Moran 2006).
Beginning in the mid-1990s, the concept of a product-service system (PSS) started to evolve. PSSs have been
adopted by businesses interested in using the model to bring not only added value to their existing offerings, but
capital-intensive, environmentally favorable products to market (Mont and Tukker 2006).
There are some definitional issues in any discussion of PSS, including the fact that services can sometimes be
considered as products, and services invariably need physical products to support their provisioning or delivery
(2006). A PSS is comprised of tangibles and intangibles (activities) in combination to fulfill specific customer
requirements, or ideally, to allow applications to be co-created flexibly by linking loosely coupled agents, typically
over a network (Domingue et al. 2009). Research has shown that manufacturing firms are more amenable to
producing "results" rather than solely products as specific artifacts and that end users are more amenable to
consuming such results (Cook 2004; Wild et al. 2007).
The popularity of wikis, blogs, and social networking tools is strong evidence that "Enterprise 2.0" is already well
under way; Andrew McAfee describes Enterprise 2.0 as "the use of emergent social software platforms within
companies, or between companies and their partners or customers" (McAfee 2009). However, the integrated access
to people, media, services, and things, provided by the Future Internet, will enable new styles of societal and
economic interactions at unprecedented scales, flexibility, and quality. These applications will exploit the wisdom of
crowds and allow for mass collaboration and value co-creation.

The future internet will provide location independent, interoperable, scalable, secure, and efficient access to a
coordinated set of services (Tselentis et al. 2009), but such a broad vision demands a sound and well-defined
approach for management and governance.
Current application service providers like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, and Google must mediate between the
business challenges enabled by network and IT convergence and customers (enterprise or consumer) demanding new
and more value-adding services enabled by social networks (TMFORUM 2008). The differences between IT and
communications technologies are disappearing; internally-focused processes (back-stage processes) for operations
optimization are now being strongly tied to the customer facing (front-stage) processes for value co-creation and
delivery. In this scenario, the enterprise’s internal organization and employees are embedded in the service value
chain to benefit customers and stakeholders. In the service-dominant logic (S-DL) for marketing (Vargo and Lusch
2004), service is the application (through deeds, processes, and performances) of specialized operant resources
(knowledge and skills) for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself. The emphasis is on the process of doing
something for, and with, another entity in order to create value; a service system is thus a system of interacting and
interdependent parts (people, technologies, and organizations) that is externally oriented to achieve and maintain a
sustainable competitive advantage (IFM 2008; Maglio and Spohrer 2008).
The future internet is expected to be more agile, scalable, secure, and reliable, demanding rapidly emerging
applications/services with different requirements and implications for the Future Internet design that pose a
significant set of problems and challenges, in particular, “the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of the
specialist as well as the need to find new approaches to problems created by earlier 'solution of problems,'” (Skyttner
2006). The service systems engineering discipline may inform the discussion and offer potential multidisciplinary
environments and trans-disciplinary solutions.
The internet has been successfully deployed for several decades due to its high flexibility in running over different
kinds of physical media and in supporting different high-layer protocols and applications, including traditional file
transfer, email, and client-server-based Web applications, among others.
Business Dependence on Service Systems

Most people and enterprises are heavily dependent on service interactions, including entertainment, communications,
retail, education, healthcare, etc., brought about by emerging services, such as video on demand, web conferencing,
time-shift services, place-shift and device-shift services, enterprise applications (e.g., enterprise resource planning
(ERP), customer relationship management (CRM), manufacturing resource management (MRM), software
configuration management (SCM), etc.), software as a service (SaaS), platform as a service (PaaS), cloud services,
peer-to-peer (P2P) services, etc. A common denominator in the set of services mentioned is that applications are
offered as services by the interaction of service system entities and thus they are service based applications (SBA).
Thus, “A service based application is obtained by composing various service system entities to satisfy the desired
functionality” (Andrikopoulos et al. 2010). SBAs are heavily dependent on web services development, such as Web
services 2.0 (WS). Software systems engineering (SwSE) plays a very important role in a business dependent on a
service system. However, another important role is played by human interfaces, organizational development and
technology development; for instance, governance (rules & regulations) and technology research and development
are required for future services in healthcare services, intelligent transportation services, environmental services,
energy services, etc. to address societal challenges of the 21st century (sustainability, energy, etc.) as presented by
(Vest 2010) if we were to face those challenges as an ecosystem.
Service System Example

In an intelligent transport system-emergency transportation operation (ITS-ETO), the service goal is to provide safe
evacuation, prompt medical care, and improved emergency management service. Typically, a traveler can request
service through an emergency call or automated crash report feature, or a public safety officer on location can
request service based on customer features and access rights.
The ITS-ETO service system utilizes advances in communication and information systems (technology and
information enabler) to access essential, real-time data about conditions on routes throughout the affected area and
coordinate operational and logistical strategies in cooperation within all service entities (organization processes). In a
critical emergency situation, when patient conditions are continuously changing, ITS can help identify the
appropriate response and get the correct equipment (infrastructure enabler), such as a helicopter and emergency
personnel (people enabler), to and from the scene quickly and safely.
Efficient and reliable voice, data, and video communications (application enabler) further provide agencies with the
ability to share information related to the status of the emergency, the operational conditions of the transportation
facilities, and the location of emergency response resources to help communicate and coordinate operations and
resources in real time. Advances in logistical and decision-making tools can enable commanders and dispatchers to
implement strategies as conditions change (decision making).
It is also critical to receive information on the environmental conditions (storm, hazardous materials, multi-vehicle
crashes, etc.) and/or road closures when coordinating evacuations. The availability of real-time data about
transportation conditions, coupled with decision-making tools, enables more effective responses and coordination of
resources during emergencies. ITS-ETO also enhances the ability of transportation agencies to coordinate responses
with other stakeholders/entities.
As a result, increased data accuracy, timeliness, and automation leads to better use of resources, and reuse of
exchanges, resulting in time and cost savings. Enhanced response and management leads to greater situational
awareness and more effective reactions with the ability to identify and utilize the appropriate equipment, resulting in
a more efficient response at the right time (output) (US DOT 2011). Figure 1 below lists the possible stakeholders in
a service system.
Figure 1. Service System Context Diagram. (SEBoK Original)
As seen in the above example, the service activities are knowledge-intensive; well defined linkages (including access
rights) and relationships among different entities give rise to the needed service systems interactions for the service
system to be successful. As the world becomes more widely interconnected, and people become better educated, the
services networks created by the interaction of the service systems will be accessible from anywhere, at any time, by
anyone with the proper access rights.
Knowledge agents are then humans creating new linkages of information to create new knowledge which “can later
be embedded in other people, technology, shared information, and organizations." Thus, people can be considered as
individual service systems with “finite life cycles, identities (with associated histories and expectations), legal rights
and authority to perform certain functions, perform multitasking as a way to increase individual productivity output
in a finite time, and engage in division-of-labor with others to increase collective productive output in finite time”
through service transactions enabled by their access rights (Spohrer and Kwan 2008).
References
Works Cited
Andrikopoulos, V., A. Bucchiarone, E. Di Nitto, R. Kazhamiakin, S. Lane, V. Mazza, and I. Richardson. 2010.
"Chapter 8: Service Engineering," in Service Research Challenges and Solutions for the Future Internet S-Cube –
Towards Engineering, Managing and Adapting Service-Based Systems, edited by M. Papazoglou, K. Pohl, M.
Parkin, and A. Metzger. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. p. 271-337.
Cook, M. 2004. "Understanding The Potential Opportunities Provided by Service-Orientated Concepts to Improve
Resource Productivity," in Design and Manufacture for Sustainable Development 2004, edited by T. Bhamra and B.
Hon. Bury St. Edmonds, Suffolk, UK: Professional Engineering Publishing Limited. p. 123-134.
Domingue, J., D. Fensel, J. Davies, R. González-Cabero, and C. Pedrinaci. 2009. "The Service Web: a Web of
Billions of Services," in Towards the Future Internet - A European Research Perspective, edited by G. Tselentis, J.
Domingue, A. Galis, A. Gavras, D. Hausheer, S. Krco, V. Lotz, and T. Zehariadis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
IOS Press.
IFM. 2008. Succeeding through Service Innovation: A service perspective for education, research, business and
government. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing (IfM) and International Business Machines
Corporation (IBM) report. Cambridge Service Science, Management and Engineering Symposium, July 14-15, 2007,
Cambridge, UK.
Maglio P., and J. Spohrer 2008. "Fundamentals of Service Science." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
36 (1): 18-20. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-007-0058-9.
Maglio, P., Weske, M., Yang, J. and Fantinato, Marcelo. 2010. 8th International Conference on Service Oriented
Computing (ICSOC 2010). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 6470. Springer-Verlag, San Francisco,
California. December 2010.
McAfee, A. 2009. Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization's Toughest Challenges. Boston,
MA, USA: Harvard Business School Press.
Mont, O., and A. Tukker. 2006. "Product-Service Systems." Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (17): 1451-1454.
Moran, M. 2006. Servicizing Solar Panels. Industry Course Report. Lund University International Master’s
Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science Department (LUMES), Lund University, Sweden.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2000. The Service Economy. Science
Technology Industry (STI) Business and Industry Policy Forum Series. Paris, France: OECD. Available: http:/ /
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/33/2090561.pdf.
Skyttner, L. 2006. General Systems Theory: Perspectives, Problems, Practice, 2nd ed. Singapore: World Scientific
Publishing Company.
Spohrer, J., and S.K. Kwan. 2009. "Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED): An
Emerging Discipline - Outline & References." International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector. 1
(3): 1-31.
Spohrer, J.C. 2011. "Service Science: Progress & Directions." Presented at the International Joint Conference on
Service Science, May 25-27, 2011, Taipei, Taiwan.
TM Forum. 2008. Service Delivery Framework (SDF) Overview, Release 2.0. Morristown, NJ: TeleManagement
Forum. Technical Report 139.
Tselentis, G., J. Domingue, A. Galis, A. Gavras, D. Hausheer, S. Krco, V. Lotz, and T. Zahariadis (eds.). 2009.
Towards the Future Internet - A European Research Perspective. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
US DOT. 2011. "Emergency Transportation Operations." Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
Accessed June 23, 2011. Last updated June 16, 2011. Available: http://www.its.dot.gov/eto/index.htm.
Vest, C.M., 2013. "Educating Engineers for 2020 and Beyond" .The Bridge. Washington DC, National Academy of
Engineering.
Wild, P.J., J. Jupp, W. Kerley, C. Eckert, and P.J. Clarkson. 2007. "Towards A Framework for Profiling of Products
and Services." Presented at 5th International Conference on Manufacturing Research (ICMR), September 11-13,
2007, Leicester, UK.
Primary References
IFM. 2008. Succeeding through Service Innovation: A service perspective for education, research, business and
government. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing (IfM) and International Business Machines
Corporation (IBM) report. Cambridge Service Science, Management and Engineering Symposium, July 14-15, 2007,
Cambridge, UK.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2000. The Service Economy. Science
Technology Industry (STI) Business and Industry Policy Forum Series. Paris, France: OECD. Available: http:/ /
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/33/2090561.pdf.
Parkin, and A. Metzger. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. p. 271-337.
Cook, M. 2004. "Understanding The Potential Opportunities Provided by Service-Orientated Concepts to Improve
Resource Productivity," in Design and Manufacture for Sustainable Development 2004, edited by T. Bhamra and B.
Hon. Bury St. Edmonds, Suffolk, UK: Professional Engineering Publishing Limited. p. 123-134.
Domingue, J., D. Fensel, J. Davies, R. González-Cabero, and C. Pedrinaci. 2009. "The Service Web: a Web of
Billions of Services," in Towards the Future Internet - A European Research Perspective, edited by G. Tselentis, J.
Domingue, A. Galis, A. Gavras, D. Hausheer, S. Krco, V. Lotz, and T. Zehariadis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
IOS Press.
Maglio P., and J. Spohrer 2008. "Fundamentals of Service Science." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
36 (1): 18-20. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-007-0058-9.
Mont, O., and A. Tukker. 2006. "Product-Service Systems." Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (17): 1451-1454.
Moran, M. 2006. Servicizing Solar Panels. Industry Course Report. Lund University International Master’s
Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science Department (LUMES), Lund University, Sweden.
Publishing Company.
Emerging Discipline - Outline & References." International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector. 1
(3): 1-31.
Service Science, May 25-27, 2011, Taipei, Taiwan.
TM Forum. 2008. Service Delivery Framework (SDF) Overview, Release 2.0. Morristown, NJ: TeleManagement
Forum. Technical Report 139.
Tselentis, G., J. Domingue, A. Galis, A. Gavras, D. Hausheer, S. Krco, V. Lotz, and T. Zahariadis (eds.). 2009.
Towards the Future Internet - A European Research Perspective. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
US DOT. 2011. "Emergency Transportation Operations." Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
Accessed June 23, 2011. Last updated June 16, 2011. Available: http://www.its.dot.gov/eto/index.htm.
Wild, P.J., J. Jupp, W. Kerley, C. Eckert, and P.J. Clarkson. 2007. "Towards A Framework for Profiling of Products
and Services." Presented at 5th International Conference on Manufacturing Research (ICMR), September 11-13,
2007, Leicester, UK.

Fundamentals of Services
Lead Authors: Ricardo Pineda, Bud Lawson
Services are activities that cause a transformation of the state of an entity (a person, product, business, region, or
nation) by mutually agreed terms between the service provider and the customer. Individual services are relatively
simple, although they may require customization and significant back-stage support (e.g., database, knowledge
management, analysis, forecasting, etc.) to assure quality and timely delivery. Product services are also relatively
straightforward as product specifications, performance standards, quality control, installation guidelines, and
maintenance procedures require good communication and understanding between providers and users. Business
services can be rather complex; some may involve intensive negotiations, work process alignment, quality assurance,
team collaboration, and service coproduction. Moreover, Chang (2010) states that: “Regional and National services
are even more complex, as they may affect policy, custom regulations, export permits, local business practices,
logistics, distribution, and other such issues" (see also Complexity).
Service Systems
The service and/or set of services developed and accessible to the customer (individual consumer or enterprise) are
enabled by a service system. Service system stakeholders may interact to create a particular service value chain to be
delivered with a specific objective (Spohrer and Maglio 2010). Service system entities dynamically configure four
types of resources: people, technology/environment infrastructure, organizations(glossary)/institutions, and shared
information/symbolic knowledge. Service systems can be either formal or informal in nature. In the case of formal
service systems, the interactions are contracted through service level agreements (SLA). Informal service systems
can promise to reconfigure resources without a written contractual agreement; in the case of the emergency
transports operations example discussed in the Service Systems Background article, there is no formal contractual
agreement (i.e., SLA) between the user requesting the service and the agency providing the service other than a
“promise” for a quick and efficient response. SLAs are written contracts between and among service system entities,
as well as the legal system for enforcing the contracts. The study of informal service systems contains the study of
relationships (communications, interactions, and promises) between service systems and social systems, cultural
norms and beliefs, as well as political systems that can maintain those relationships (Spohrer and Kwan 2008). The
resources are either physical or non-physical and have rights or no rights. See Figure 1 below:
Figure 1. Service System Resources (Spohrer 2011). Reprinted with permission of Dr. James C. Spohrer. All
Service Value Chain

SLAs and policies specify the conditions under which services system entities reconfigure access rights to resources
by mutually agreed value propositions. Current management frameworks typically focus on single service system
entity interfaces. They neither use SLAs for managing the implementation and delivery of services nor do they
recognize/support the fact that many services may be composed of lower-level services, involve third-party
providers, and rely on possibly complex relationships and processes among participating businesses, information
communications, and technologies (CoreGRID 2007). While SLAs are mapped to the respective customer
requirements, policies are provider-specific means to express constraints and rules for their internal operations.
These rules may be independent of any particular customer (Theilmann 2009).
In service systems practice, we describe the service value chain in terms of links among the entities connected via
the Network Centric operations of service systems. For instance, value could then be created and delivered in terms
of e-services, such as business-to-business (B2B), business to consumer (B2C), business to government (B2G),
government-to-business (G2B), government-to-government (G2G), government-to-consumer (G2C), etc. The
emerging service in this case interacts or “co-produces” with their customer via the World Wide Web as compared to
the physical environment in which the traditional, or brick and mortar, service enterprises interact with their
customers.
The services sector requires information as input, involves the customer at the production/delivery stage, and
employs mostly qualitative measures to assess its performance, i.e., technology-intensive services are
“information-driven, customer centric, e-oriented, and productivity-focused" (Tien and Berg 2003; Hipel et al. 2007;
Chesbrough 2011). Chang (2010) defines these features in this manner:
• Information Driven: The creation, management, and sharing of information is crucial to the design, production,
and delivery of services.
• Customer Centric: Customers are generally the co-producer of the services, as in the case of self-service.
Customers require a certain degree of self-adaptation or customization and customers must be satisfied with the
rendered services.
• E (electronics) Oriented: Services are becoming increasingly e-oriented. Thus, e-access, e-commerce, and
e-customer management are crucial to e-services.
• Productivity Focused: Both efficiency and effectiveness are important in the design, delivery, and support of
services.
• Value Adding: Services need to provide some value for the target clients. For profit-seeking service companies,
the value produced for customers assures the company's profitability. For non-profit service entities, the value
produced for customers reinforces the quality of a service entity's policy.
A service system is defined by its value co-creation chain in which stakeholders work in open collaboration to
deliver consistently high quality service according to business goals, service goals, and customer goals. A value
proposition can be viewed as a request from one service system to another to run an algorithm (the value
proposition) from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders according to culturally determined value principles. The
four primary stakeholder’s perspectives in regards to value are the customer, provider, authority, and the competitors.
Figure 2 below depicts value calculations from multiple stakeholder perspectives.
Table 1. Value Calculation from Different Stakeholders' Perspectives (Spohrer 2011).

Reprinted with permission of Dr. James C. Spohrer. All other rights are reserved by the
copyright owner.
Stakeholder Measure Impacted Pricing Basic Questions Value Proposition Reasoning
Perspective (the Decision
players)
1. Customer Quality (Revenue) Value Based Should we? Model of customer: Do customers want it? Is there
(offer it) a market? How large? Growth rate?
2. Provider Productivity (Profit, Mission, Cost Plus Can we? (deliver Model of self: Does it play to our strengths? Can
Continuous Improvement, it) we deliver it profitability to customers? Can we
Sustainability) continue to improve?
3. Authority Compliance (Taxes and Fines, Regulated May we? (offer Model of authority: Is it legal? Does it compromise
Quality of Fire) and deliver it) our integrity in any way? Does it create a moral
hazard?
4. Competitor Sustainable Innovation (Market Strategic Will we? (invest Model of competitor: Does it put us ahead? Can we
(Substitute) Share) to make it so) stay ahead? Does it differentiate us from the
competition?
From an engineering design point of view, the service and business goals are an entry point through which to analyze
the business architectures (including organization and processes) needed, which in turn demand alignment between
the information technology (IT) components and technology architecture to achieve the goals. From a systems
engineering perspective, the next step is to identify service system entities that could participate in the service
delivery (people, organizations, technologies, processes, etc.).
Service System Entities

Spath and Fahnrich (2007) defined a service meta-model comprised of nine types of entities:
1. Customers: customer features, customer attitudes, and customer preferences;
2. Goals: business goals, service goals, customer goals, and enterprise culture goals;
3. Inputs: physical, human beings, information, knowledge, currency, and constraints;
4. Outputs: physical, human beings, information, knowledge, currency, and waste;
5. Processes: service provision, service operations, service support, customer relationships, planning and control,
and call center management;
6. Human Enablers: service providers, support providers, management, and owner organization (enterprise);
7. Physical Enablers: owner organization (physical), buildings, equipment, furnishings, and location;
8. Informatics Enablers: information, knowledge, procedures and processes, decision support, and skill
acquisition; and
9. Environment: political factors, economic factors, social factors, technological factors, environmental factors,
legal factors (PESTEL), and physical factors.
Thus, a service or service offering is created by the relationships among service system entities (including
information flows) through business processes into strategic capabilities that consistently provide superior value to
the customer. If we were to represent the service as a network diagram (as in Figure 3 below), then the entities
represent the nodes and the links represent the relationships between nodes.
Figure 2. Service Systems Network Diagram. (SEBoK Original)

Service System Hierarchy

Systems are part of other systems which are often expressed by systems hierarchies (Skyttner 2010) to create a
multilevel hierarchy, and thus the service system is composed of service system entities that interact through
processes defined by governance and management rules to create different types of outcomes in the context of
stakeholders with the purpose of providing improved customer interaction and value co-creation. Examples of
service system entities are business enterprises, nations, or in the simplest form, a person (consumes and produces
services).
Using the hierarchical approach, Spohrer conceptualizes an ecosystem at the highest level in which a service system
is an entity of its own. This concept is extended to create the service system hierarchy as described in Figure 4 below
(Spohrer 2011; Maglio and Spohrer 2008; Maglio et al. 2010).
Figure 3. Service System Conceptual Framework (Spohrer 2011). Reprinted with permission of Dr. James C. Spohrer. All other rights are
Service System Attributes

The fundamental attributes of a service system include togetherness, structure, behavior, and emergence. As
mentioned earlier, today’s global economy is very competitive and a service system may be very competitive in a
given environment at a given time (the business space). The service system’s trajectory should be well controlled as
time goes by (Qiu 2009) since services are “real time in nature and are consumed at the time they are co-produced”
(Tien and Berg 2003), that is, during service transactions.
The service system should evolve and adapt to the conditions within the business space in a manner which ensures
that the customized service behaves as expected. This adaptive behavior of service systems implies that their design
must be truly trans-disciplinary:
They must include techniques from social science (i.e., sociology, psychology, and philosophy) and
management (i.e., organization, economics, and entrepreneurship). As a consequence, Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics (SMC) must expand their systems (i.e., holistic oriented), man (i.e., decision-oriented),
and cybernetics methods to include and be integrated with those techniques that are beyond science and
engineering. (Hipel et al. 2007)
References
Works Cited
Operational Excellence. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
CoreGRID. 2007. Using SLA for Resource Management and Scheduling - A Survey. Technical Report 0096. Jülich
& Dortmund, Germany: European Research Network on Foundations, Software Infrastructures and Applications for
Large Scale Distributed, GRID and Peer-to-Peer Technologies, Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling.
Accessed June 4, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. coregrid. net/ mambo/ images/ stories/ TechnicalReports/ tr-0096.
pdf.
Application Domains and Research Methods." IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part C:
Maglio, P., C. Kieliszewski, and J. Spohrer. 2010. Handbook of Service Science. New York, NY, USA: Springer
Science and Business Media.
36 (1): 18-20.
Qiu, R. 2009. "Computational Thinking of Service Systems: Dynamics and Adaptiveness Modeling." Service
Science. 1 (1): 42-55.
Publishing Company.
Spath, D., and K.P. Fähnrich (eds.). 2007. Advances in Services Innovations. Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Emerging Discipline - Outline & References." International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 1
(3): 1-31.
Spohrer, J., and P.P Maglio. 2010. "Chapter 1: Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet," in Introduction to Service
Engineering, edited by G. Salvendy and W. Karwowski. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Theilmann, W., and L. Baresi. 2009. "Multi-level SLAs for Harmonized Management in the Future Internet," in
Towards the Future Internet - A European Research Perspective, edited by G. Tselentis, J. Domingue, A. Galis, A.
Gavras, D. Hausheer, S. Krco, V. Lotz, and T. Zehariadis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
Primary References
Operational Excellence. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Application Domains and Research Methods." IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part C:
Spath, D., and K.P. Fähnrich (eds.). 2007. Advances in Services Innovations. Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
CoreGRID. 2007. Using SLA for Resource Management and Scheduling - A Survey. Technical Report 0096. Jülich
& Dortmund, Germany: European Research Network on Foundations, Software Infrastructures and Applications for
Large Scale Distributed, GRID and Peer-to-Peer Technologies, Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling.
Accessed June 4, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. coregrid. net/ mambo/ images/ stories/ TechnicalReports/ tr-0096.
pdf.
Maglio, P., C. Kieliszewski, and J. Spohrer. 2010. Handbook of Service Science. New York, NY, USA: Springer
Science and Business Media.
36 (1): 18-20.
Qiu, R. 2009. "Computational Thinking of Service Systems: Dynamics and Adaptiveness Modeling." Service
Science. 1 (1): 42-55.
Publishing Company.
Emerging Discipline - Outline & References." International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 1
(3): 1-31.
Spohrer, J., and P.P Maglio. 2010. "Chapter 1: Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet," in Introduction to Service
Engineering, edited by G. Salvendy and W. Karwowski. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Properties of Services
Lead Authors: Ricardo Pineda, Bud Lawson, Brian Wells
A service is realized by the service system through the relationships of service system entities that interact (or relate)
in a particular way to deliver the specific service via a service level agreement (SLA). Current management
frameworks typically only focus on the interfaces of single service system entities. Meanwhile, SLAs are mapped to
the respective customer requirements. These policies are provider-specific means to express constraints and rules for
their internal operations. These rules may be independent of any particular customer (Theilmann 2009).
Services not only involve the interaction between the service provider and the consumer to produce value, but have
other attributes, like an intangible quality of service (e.g., an ambulance service's availability and response time to an
emergency request). The demand for a service may have varying loads dependent on the time of day, day of week,
season, or other unexpected needs (e.g., natural disasters, product promotion campaigns, etc.). In the US for instance,
travel services have peak demands during Christmas week; Mother’s day is usually the highest volume handling day
for a telecommunications provider and tax services peak during extended periods (January through mid-April).
Services cannot be inventoried; they are rendered at the time they are requested.
Additionally, for a business enterprise, delivering the service at the minimum cost while maximizing its profits may
be the service objective. In contrast, for a non-profit organization the objective may be to maximize customer
satisfaction while optimizing the resources required to render the service (e.g., during a natural disaster). Thus, the
design and operations of service systems “is all about finding the appropriate balance between the resources devoted
to the systems and the demands placed on the system so that the quality of service to the customer is as good as
possible” (Daskin 2010).
Service Level Agreement

A SLA is a set of technical (functional) and non-technical (non-functional) parameters agreed among customers and
service providers. SLAs can and do contain administrative level (non-functional) business related parameters, such
as SLA duration, service availability for the SLA duration, consequences for variations, failure reporting, priorities,
and provisions for modifications to the SLA. However, for service level management, the service level (technical)
parameters need to be defined, monitored, and assessed; these parameters may include such things as throughput;
quality; availability; security; performance; reliability, for example, mean time between failure (MTBF), maximum
downtime, and time-to-repair; and resource allocation.
An SLA represents the negotiated service level requirements (SLR) of the customer and should establish valid and
reliable service performance measures since it is usually the basis for effective service level management (SLM).
The goal of SLM is to ensure that service providers meet and maintain the prescribed quality of service (QoS).
However, care should be taken since in some domains the term QoS refers only to resource reservation control
mechanisms rather than the achieved service quality (e.g., internet protocol (IP) networks). Some terms used to mean
the “achieved service quality” include quality of experience (QoE), user-perceived performance, and degree of
satisfaction of the user; these other terms are more generally used across service domains.
Non-functional properties fall into two basic categories: business properties, such as price and method of payment,
and environmental properties, such as time and location. Business and environmental properties are classified as
“context properties” by Youakim Badr (Badr et al. 2008). QoS properties are characteristics such as availability,
resilience, security, reliability, scalability, agreement duration, response times, repair times, usability, etc. Therefore
services evaluation measures are customer oriented and include not only traditional performance metrics
(productivity, quality, etc.), but also require a comprehensive analysis of the service system from an end-to-end
perspective. Service evaluation typically includes customer demand-supply to ensure economic viability across the
lifecycle of the service system. Furthermore, the service delivery is evaluated using the key technical performance
metrics listed above, adding also Service Process Measures (provisioning time, time-to-restore/repair, etc.) and
Technical Performance Measures (end-to-end response times, latency, throughput, etc.). Finally, the service system’s
SLAs are then the composition of these categories evaluated on a systemic level to ensure consistency, equity, and
sustainability of the service to assure that the desired/contracted SLA for customer satisfaction, value co-creation,
and high system robustness are realized. (Spohrer 2011; Tien and Berg 2003; Theilmann and Baresi, 2009)
Service Key Performance Indicators

Service key performance indicators (KPI) are defined and agreed to in the SLA; the service KPIs are decomposed
into service process measures (SPM) and technical performance measures (TPM) during the analysis stage of the
service systems engineering (SSE) process. In the design process, the KPIs and TPM are allocated to service system
entities and their components, as well as to the business processes and their components so as to ensure compliance
with SLAs. The allocated measures generate derived requirements (SLR) for the system entities and their
relationships, as well as for the service entities' components and the data and information flows required in the
service systems to monitor, measure, and assess end-to-end SLA. These allocations ensure that the appropriate
performance indicators apply to each of the links in the service value chain.
TPMs are typically categorized by the number of defective parts in a manufacturing service, data transmission
latency and data throughput in an end-to-end application service, IP QoS expressed by latency, jitter delay, and
throughput; SPMs are typically categorized by service provisioning time, end-to-end response times to a service
request (a combination of data and objective feedback), and quality of experience (QoE verified by objective
feedback). Together, the KPI (TPM combined with SPM) and perception measures make up the service level
management function. A quality assurance system's (QAS) continuous service improvement (CSI), processes, and
process quality management and improvement (PQMI) should be planned, designed, deployed, and managed for the
capability to continuously improve the service system and to monitor compliance with SLAs (e.g., PQMI, capability
maturity model integration (CMMI) (SEI 2007), International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standards
9001 (ISO/IEC 2008), Telecom Quality Management System Standards (TL 9000) (QuEST Forum 2012),
Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) v. 3 (OGC 2009), etc.).
As discussed earlier, QoS needs to correlate customer perceived quality (subjective measures) with objective SPM
and TPM measures. There are several techniques available to help monitor, measure, and assess TPM’s, but most are
a variation on the theme of culling information from TPM’s using, for example, perceptual speech quality measure
(PSQM) and perceptual evaluation of video quality (PEVQ) and enhancing or verifying this information with
customer or end-user perception of service by extending mean opinion score (MOS) techniques/customer opinion
models (Ray 1984). Telecommunication systems engineering (TCSE) played an important role in finding
methodologies for correlation between perception and objective measures for the services of the twentieth century;
SSE should continue to encourage multidisciplinary participation to equally find methodologies, processes, and tools
to correlate perceived service quality with TPM and with SPM for the services of the twenty-first century (Freeman
2004).
Subjective (qualitative) service quality is the customer’s perceived conformity of the service with the expected
objective. Word-of-mouth, personal needs, and past experiences create customer expectations regarding the service.
The customers' perception of the service must be captured via surveys and interviews. The customers' perception of
the service is then compared with their expectations for the service; this process captures the perceived service
quality. Care should be taken to understand that subjective measures appear to measure customer attitudes, and
attitudes may be the result of several encounters with the service, as well as numerous encounters with similar
services.
In summary, the SLA documents the SLRs and establishes reliable and valid service performance measures,
technical parameters, and the agreed performance levels for the technical parameters. The technical parameters are
then monitored and continuously compared against both objective and subjective data culled from multiple internal
and external sources (service level management). The goal is not to report the level of service in a given period, but
to develop and implement a dynamic system capable of predicting and driving service level improvement over time
(i.e., continual service improvement (CSI)).
Evolution of Services
The second, third, and fourth decades of the twenty-first century will almost certainly see similar, and probably
accelerated, technology development as seen in the prior three decades. Mass collaboration will become an
established mode of operation. The beginnings of mass collaboration have manifested in developments such as value
co-creation where loosely entangled actors or entities come together to create value in unprecedented ways, but ways
that meet mutual and broader market requirements. Further developments in the technology, use, and acceptance of
social media will continue to fuel the acceleration of these developments.
The next decades will see the grounding of concepts, such as crowdsourcing, coined by Jeff Howe in a June 2006
Wired magazine article; open innovation, promoted by Henry Chesbrough, a professor and executive director at the
Center for Open Innovation at Berkeley; and mass collaboration and open source innovation supported by Enterprise
2.0 tools, as conceived by Wikinomics consultant Don Tapscott.
Roberto Saracco, a telecommunications expert specializing in analyzing economical impacts of technology
evolution, argues that: “Communications will be the invisible fabric connecting us and the world whenever and
wherever we happen to be in a completely seamless way, connecting us so transparently, cheaply, and effortlessly
that very seldom will we think about it.” The ubiquity and invisibility of these communications will greatly facilitate
the creation and destruction of ad hoc collectives (groups of entities that share or are motivated by at least one
common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective). This enterprise
may engender the concept of the hive mind (the collective intelligence of many), which will be an intelligent version
of real-life super organisms, such as ant or bee nests (Hölldobler and Wilson 2009).
These models will most certainly give rise to issues of property rights and liabilities; access rights for both the
provider and the customer can be owned outright, contracted/leased, shared, or have privileged access (Spohrer
2011). For now, we are on the cusp of a management revolution that is likely to be as profound and unsettling as the
one that gave birth to the modern industrial age. Driven by the emergence of powerful new collaborative
technologies, this transformation will radically reshape the nature of work, the boundaries of the enterprise, and the
responsibilities of business leaders (McAfee 2009).
The service-providing industry in the US is divided into thirteen sectors (Chang 2010):
1. professional and business services,
2. healthcare and social assistance,
3. state and local government,
4. leisure and hospitality,
5. other services,
6. educational services,
7. retail trade,
8. financial activities,
9. transportation and warehousing,
10. wholesale trade,
11. information,
12. federal government, and

13. utilities.
Spohrer (2011) goes beyond the service sectors to propose three types of service systems:
1. Systems that focus on flow of things: transportation and supply chains, water and waste recycling, food and
products, energy and electric Grid, information/ICT & cloud;
2. Systems that focus on Human Activities and Development: buildings and construction, retail and hospitality /
media and entertainment industries, banking and finance / business consulting industries, healthcare and family
life systems, education and work life / jobs and entrepreneurship; and
3. Systems that focus on Governing: cities, states, and nations.
Categorizing types and sectors of services is an important beginning because it can lead to a better understanding of
the emerging rules and relationships in service value chains. This approach can further enhance the value co-creation
capabilities of innovative service concepts that contribute to our quality of life. The classification also helps in
identifying different objectives and constraints for the design and operations of the service system. Some examples
include strategic policies under limited budget: education, strategic with readiness for quick response; national
defense; business enterprise, maximizing profit while minimizing cost; etc.
In addition, this classification is being used to determine the overlap and synergies required among different science
disciplines to enable trans-disciplinary collaboration and educational programs.
References
Works Cited
Badr, Y., A. Abraham, F. Biennier, and C. Grosan. 2008. "Enhancing Web Service Selection by User Preferences of
Non-Functional Features." Presented at 4th International Conference on Next Generation Web Services Practices,
October 20-22, 2008, Seoul, South Korea.
Daskin, M.S. 2010. Service Science. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Hölldobler, B., and E.O. Wilson. 2009. The Super-organism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect
Societies. New York, NY, USA: W.W. Norton & Company.
ISO. 2008, ISO 9001:2008, Quality management systems -- Requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Organisation for Standardisation.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). 2009. ITIL Lifecycle Publication Suite Books. London, UK: The
Stationery Office.
QuEST Forum. 2012. Quality Management System (QMS) Measurements Handbook, Release 5.0. Plano, TX, USA:
Quest Forum.
Ray, R.F. (ed). 1984. Engineering and Operations in Bell System, 2nd ed. Florham Park, NJ, USA: AT&T Bell Labs.
Service Science, 25-27 May 2011, Taipei, Taiwan.
Primary References
None.

Scope of Service Systems Engineering

Lead Authors: Ricardo Pineda, Bud Lawson
Service systems engineering (SSE) involves all aspects of the enterprise. This topic discusses different aspects of the
scope of SSE, from organizational strategy, to interoperability, to the life cycle of services, and then to their design.
SSE and the Enterprise

Enterprises plan, develop, and manage the enhancements of their infrastructure, products, and services, including
marketing strategies for product and service offerings. These plans propose new products or service offerings based
on new, unexplored, or unforeseen customer needs with clearly differentiated value propositions. Service strategies
are the internal business processes required to design, operate, and deliver services. The mission of service strategies
is to develop the capacity to achieve and maintain a strategic advantage (OGC 2009).
Taking the systems engineering (SE) approach to service systems, or (SSE), is imperative for the service-oriented,
customer-centric holistic view to select and combine service system entities. The SSE approach can then define and
discover relationships among service system entities to plan, design, adapt, or self-adapt to co-create value. The SSE
approach should identify linkages, relationships, constraints, challenges/problems, new technologies, interoperability
standards, interface agreements, or process development requirements among service entities required for the
planned service or for potential future services (Lefever 2005).
SSE mandates participation not only from engineering, business operations, and customers, but also from various
different domains, such as management science, behavioral science, social science, systems science, network
science, computer science, decision informatics, etc.
Hipel et al. (2007) have presented a table for service science in terms of the domains and methods, including not
only service systems, but also infrastructure and transportation systems, environmental and energy systems, and
defense and space systems. The collaboration domains in Figure 1 below are a first approximation to the
collaboration required from different disciplines for the SSE paradigm.
Table 1. Service Systems Engineering Domain Collaboration. (Hipel et al. 2007) Reprinted
with permission of © Copyright IEEE - All rights reserved.
SEE Collaboration Domains
SSE Management • Management Science

• Business Process Management
• Cognitive Science
• Decision Science
Service Realization Process (SRP) • All engineering fields

• Business Operations
• Infrastructure Operations
• Social Science
• Computer Science
• Management Science
• Behavioral Science
• Network Science
• Computational Science
• Systems Science
• Decision Science
Methodologies, Processes, and Tools (MPT) • Natural Science

• Business Science (BPMN)
• Mathematical
• All engineering fields
Major challenges faced by SSE include the dynamic nature of service systems evolving and adapting to constantly
changing operations and/or business environments, and the need to overcome silos of knowledge. Interoperability of
service system entities through interface agreements must be at the forefront of the SSE design process for the
harmonization of operations, administration, maintenance, and provisioning procedures of the individual service
system entities (Pineda 2010).
In addition, service systems require open collaboration among all stakeholders, but recent research on mental models
of multidisciplinary teams shows integration and collaboration into cohesive teams has proven to be a major
challenge (Carpenter et al. 2010) (See also Team Dynamics). Thus, the emphasis on multidisciplinary (e.g.,
scientific, engineering, management, and social) education and training programs required to foster systems thinking
helps bridge the gaps created by these silos of knowledge.
In the SSE approach, the social, governance, business, service, operations, and management activities are linked
together through the service life cycle; service systems are by themselves a type of system of systems (SoS) where
traditional systems engineering (TSE) practices need to be extended to include service systems entities' relationships
(e.g., interface agreements among people, organizations, processes, and technologies) through information flows,
technical interoperability, governance, and access rights within a system of systems.
Interoperability of Services
Interoperability among the different service system entities becomes highly relevant in SSE since the constituent
entities are designed according to stakeholder needs; the entity is usually managed and operated to satisfy its own
objectives independently of other system entities. The objectives of individual service system entities may not
necessarily converge with the overall objectives of the service system. Thus, the need to include the following in the
definition of a service system: analysis and design of the service system, governance frameworks to align political
objectives, service strategies, business objectives, information and communications technologies (ICT) objectives,
technology objectives and end-to-end operations, administration and maintenance procedures, and allocation of these
procedures to individual entities (Luzeaux and Ruault 2010).

The previous discussion relates to a new service system development. There may be instances where a service is
planned for delivery in phases of deployment (transition/deployment phase), or as presented earlier, if there is
already a service system defined and deployed, then it's possible that the new request is for a service based
application (SBA), in which case, the process is more focused on the adaptations needed to deploy the new
application. For SBA, instances of advances in computer engineering, computer science, and software development
already permit the adaptation and creation of SBA in a run-time environment for the discovery, development, and
publishing of applications (Maglio et al. 2010).
The service design process (SDP) for new services is triggered by the market concept of the intended service and
considers the stakeholder(s), service value chain(s), target market(s), target customer(s), proposed SLA, demand
forecast, pricing strategy, and customer access privileges, which together comprise the service strategy. The SDP
process then adapts the TSE as a life cycle approach (concept/definition, design/development, deployment/transition,
operations, life cycle management/utilization/CSI, and retirement) as discussed in Life Cycle Models. A more
detailed list of the SSE process activities is described in Value of Service Systems Engineering and Service Systems
Engineering Stages.
Service Lifecycle Stages

The SDP stages and notation are depicted in Table 2 below; due to the complexity of service systems (see also
Complexity) the documents generated are becoming more model-based electronic documents than written binders
depending on the methodologies and tools used.
Table 2. Service Realization Process: Life Cycle Stages. (SEBoK Original)
<html>
Life Cycle Changes Purpose Decision Gates
Service Strategy/Concept New Service identification Elicit enterprise needs Decision Options
Explore service concepts - Go, No-GO
Feasibility Phase Identify service system entities - Continue this
Propose viable HL black box solutions stage
HL Analysis Output: Service Description - Go to preceding
stage
Service Service Requirement Analysis and Refine service system requirements
- Hold project
Design/Development Engineering Output: Service Requirement Document
activity
Create solution description
- Terminate
Identify Interfaces among entities
Service Development project
Output: Preliminary Design
- Test
Develop service system detailed architecture and specs
- Deploy
Service Integration, Verification, Output: Service Specification Document
and Validation Verify and Validate system requirements
Output: service JV & V Plans
Service Transition/Deployment Service Insertion Plans

Deploy service system
Manage deployment activities
Inspect and test (verify)
Output: Service Operation Plans, Operations Technical
Plans, Operational Readiness Plans
Service Operations and / Continuous Service Improvement Operate a reliable service system to satisfy customer needs
Monitor, Measure, & Assess
Provide sustained system capability
Troubleshoot potential issues
Store, archive, or dispose of the service system
</html>
All the life cycle stages are included for completeness, but very often during the concept analysis phase it may be
determined that not all of the stages are needed. In these cases, a recommendation should be made regarding which
stages are specifically required for the realization of the service in question.
Service Design Management

Another important role of SSE is the management of the service design process. SSE utilizes TSE practices to
manage the resource and asset allocation to perform the activities required to realize the service through the value
chain for both the customer and the service provider. The main focus of the service design process management is to
provide for the planning, organizational structure, collaboration environment, and program controls to ensure that
stakeholder's needs are met from an end-to-end customer perspective.
The service design process management process aligns business objectives and business operational plans with
end-to-end service objectives, including customer management plans, service management and operations plans, and
operations technical plans. The main SSE management activities are
• planning;
• assessment and control;
• decision management;
• risk management;
• configuration management; and
• information management.
SSE plays a critical role in describing the needs of the intended service in terms of the service's day-to-day
operations, including customer care center requirements, interface among service system entities, such as:
manufacturing plant, smart grid, hospital, network infrastructure provider(s), content provider(s) and service
provider(s), service based application provider(s), applications providers, and the customer management process for
the service.
Current research in computer engineering and software systems engineering is looking at the development of
run-time platforms to allow real time or near real time customer service discovery and publishing (Spark 2009). The
service-centric systems engineering (SeCSE) consortium has a well-defined service design process that is being
applied to SBA. In this approach, there are design time and run-time sub-processes for the composition,
provisioning, orchestration, and testing for service publishing (Lefever 2005). There is particular interest from the
research community to include human-computer interactions (HCI) and behavioral science to address current social
networking services (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Google+, etc.) used to share unverified information via audio,
messaging, video, chats, etc.
This research is gaining relevance because of the thin line between the customer (consumer, enterprise) and content
providers in regards to security, privacy, information authentication, and possible misuse of the user-generated
content. Even as the research progresses, these networking services are examples of business models organizing
communities of interest for innovation. Hsu says, “If we understand this networking, then we may be able to see
through the business strategies and systems design laws that optimize connected value co-creation” (2009).
References
Works Cited
Carpenter, S., H. Delugach, L. Etzkorn, J. Fortune, D. Utley, and S. Virani. 2010. "The Effect of Shared Mental
Models on Team Performance." Presented at Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Institute of Industrial
Engineers, 2010, Cancun, Mexico.
Application Domains and research Methods." IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part C:
Hsu, C. 2009. "Service Science and Network Science." Service Science, 1 (2): i-ii.
Lefever, B. 2005. SeSCE Methodology. Rome, Italy: SeCSE Service Centric Systems Engineering. SeCSE511680.
Available: http://www.secse-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/a5_d4-secse-methodology-v1_3.pdf.
Luzeaux, D., and J.R. Ruault (eds.). 2010. Systems of Systems. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Maglio, P., M. Weske, J. Yang, and M. Fantinato (eds.). 2010. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Service Oriented Computing: ICSOC 2010. Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Stationery Office.
Pineda, R. 2010. "Understanding Complex Systems of Systems Engineering." Presented at Fourth General Assembly
Cartagena Network of Engineering, 2010, Metz, France.
Spark, D. 2009. "Real-Time Search and Discovery of the Social Web." Spark Media Solutions Report. Accessed
September 2, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. sparkminute. com/ 2009/ 12/ 07/
free-report-real-time-search-and-discovery-of-the-social-web/.
Primary References
Lefever, B. 2005. SeSCE Methodology. Rome, Italy: SeCSE Service Centric Systems Engineering. SeCSE511680.
None.

Value of Service Systems Engineering

Service systems engineering (SSE) is a multidisciplinary approach to manage and design value co-creation of a
service system. It extends the holistic view of a system to a customer-centric, end-to-end view of service system
design. Service systems engineers must play the role of an integrator by considering the interface requirements for
the interoperability of service system entities, not only for technical integration, but also for the processes and
organization required for optimal customer experience during service operations.
Service systems engineering uses disciplined approaches to minimize risk by coordinating/orchestrating social
aspects, governance (including security), environmental, human behavior, business, customer care, service
management, operations, and technology development processes. Therefore, systems engineers must have a good
understanding of cross disciplinary issues to manage, communicate, plan, and organize service systems development
and delivery of service. Service systems engineering also brings a customer focus to promote service excellence and
to facilitate service innovation through the use of emerging technologies to propose creation of new service systems
and value co-creation.
The service design process includes the definition of methods, processes, and procedures necessary to monitor and
track service requirements verification and validation, in particular as they relate to the operations, administration,
maintenance, and provisioning procedures of the whole service system and its entities. These procedures ensure that
failures by any entity are detected and do not propagate and disturb the operations of the service (Luzeaux and
Ruault 2010).
Research on service systems needs to fuse business process management, service innovation, and social networks for
the modeling of service system value chain (Carroll et al. 2010). The systems engineering approach helps to better
understand and manage conflict, thereby helping both private and public organizations optimize their strategic
decision making. The use of a systemic approach reduces rework, overall time to market, and total cost of
development.
Service SE Knowledge & Skills

The world’s economies continue to move toward the creation and delivery of more innovative services. To best
prepare tomorrow’s leaders, new disciplines are needed that include and ingrain different skills and create the
knowledge to support such global services. “In this evolving world, a new kind of engineer is needed, one who can
think broadly across disciplines and consider the human dimensions that are at the heart of every design challenge”
(Grasso and Martinelli 2007).
Service systems engineers fit the T-shaped model of professionals (Maglio and Spohrer 2008) who must have a
deeply developed specialty area, as well as a broad set of skills and capabilities (See the Enabling Individuals
article). Chang (2010) lists the following twelve service system management and engineering (SSME) skills:
1. Management of Service Systems. These skills include scheduling, budgeting and management of information
systems/technologies, and leadership;
2. Operations of Service Systems. Engineers should be proficient in process evaluation and improvement, quality
improvement, customer relationships, and uncertainty management;
3. Service Processes. These skills include performance measurements, flow charting, work task breakdown;
4. Business Management. Business skills include project costing, business planning, and change management;
5. Analytical Skills. These skills include problem solving, economic decision analysis, risk analysis, cost estimating,
probability and statistics;
6. Interpersonal Skills. Increasingly, service systems engineers are expected to excel in professional responsibility,
verbal skills, technical writing, facilitating, and team building;
7. Knowledge Management. Service systems engineers should be familiar with definition, strategies, success
factors, hurdles, and best practices in industry;
8. Creativity and Innovation in Services. These skills include creative thinking methods, success factors, value
chain, best practices, and future of innovation;
9. Financial and Cost Analysis and Management. Additional business skills include activity-based costing, cost
estimation under uncertainty, T-account, financial statements, ratio analysis, balanced scoreboards, and capital
formation;
10. Marketing Management. Market forecast, market segmentation, marketing mix- service, price, communications
and distribution- are important marketing tools;
11. Ethics and Integrity. Service Systems Engineers must be held to high ethical standards. These include practicing
ethics in workplace and clear guidelines for making tough ethical decisions, corporate ethics programs,
affirmation action, and workforce diversity, as well as global issues related to ethics. (See Ethical Behavior); and
12. Global Orientation. Increasingly, engineers must be aware of emerging business trends and challenges with
regards to globalization drivers, global opportunities, and global leadership qualities.
Service Architecture, Modeling & Views

Successful deployment of service value chains is highly dependent on the alignment of the service with the overall
enterprise service strategy, customer expectations, and customer’s service experience. The importance of
service-oriented customer-centric design has been recognized for several years by traditional service providers
(telecommunications, information technology (IT), business reengineering, web services, etc.) through the creation
of process-driven architecture frameworks.
Architecture frameworks are important for creating a holistic system view. They promote a common understanding
of the major building blocks and their interrelation in systems of systems or complex systems of systems (see also
Complexity). An architecture is a model of the the system created to describe the entities, the interactions and
interoperability among entities, as well as the expected behavior, utilization, and properties of the end-to-end system.
The architectures become the main tool to guide stakeholders, developers, third-party providers, operations
managers, service managers, and users in the understanding of the end-to-end service system, as well as to enable
governance at the service management and the service development levels.
These architecture frameworks have been defined through standards bodies and/or by private enterprises that
recognize their advantage—standard processes that integrate the business-strategic processes and operations with the
information technology and technology infrastructure (See Systems Engineering Standards). Most architecture
frameworks model different scopes and levels of detail of business strategies, product and service offerings, business
operations, and organizational aspects. Unfortunately, there are currently no frameworks that cover all the aspects
(views) required to model the service systems. Some frameworks focus on business strategies, others in business
process management, others in business operations, still others in aligning IT strategy or technology strategy to
business strategy. Thus, a combination of architecture frameworks is required to create the enterprise service system
model. For instance, an enterprise may use an enterprise business architecture (EBA) model covering strategic goals
and objectives, business organization, and business services and processes where driven by market evolution,
technology evolution, and customer demands. However, a reference framework would be needed to model the IT
strategy (e.g., Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) v. 3 (OGC 2009)) and the organizations and
processes needed to deliver, maintain, and manage the IT services according to the business strategy.
Service Architecture Frameworks

Prime examples of Service Architecture Frameworks are listed below.
Standards:
• Zachmann Framework (Zachman 2003)
• Business Process Modeling (BPM) (Hantry et al. 2010)
• The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) (TOGAF 2009)
• Enhanced-Telecomm Operations Map (eTOM) by the TeleManagemnt Forum (eTOM 2009)
• Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) (Erl 2008)
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Smart Grid Reference Model (NIST 2010)
• Web services business process execution language (WS-BPEL) (OASIS 2007)
• Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) (DoD 2010)
• Others.
Proprietary Enterprise Architecture Frameworks:
• Hewlett - Packard IT Service Management Reference Model (HP ITSMRM 2000)
• International Business Machines Systems Management Solutions Life Cycle, IBM Rational Software.
• Microsoft Operations Framework
This list represents only a sample of the existing service architecture frameworks.
One great example of architecture frameworks applications for service systems, the “High Level Reference Model
for the Smart Grid,” developed by NIST in 2010 under the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” (EISA),
is presented below:
EISA designated the development of a Smart Grid as a national policy goal, specifying that an
interoperability framework should be “flexible, uniform and technology neutral. The law also instructed
that the framework should accommodate “traditional, centralized generation and distribution resources”
while also facilitating incorporation of new, innovative Smart Grid technologies, such as distributed
renewable energy resources and energy storage. (NIST 2010)
The NIST reference model was developed as “a tool for identifying the standards and protocols needed to ensure
interoperability and cyber security, and defining and developing architectures for systems and subsystems within the
smart grid." Figure 1 illustrates this model and the strategic (organizational), informational (business operations, data
structures, and information exchanges required among system entities), and technical needs of the smart grid (data
structures, entities specifications, interoperability requirements, etc.).
Figure 1. The Grid-Wide Architecture Council’s Eight-Layered Stack (NIST and US Dept. of Commerce 2010). Released.
The NIST reference model uses this architecture framework to identify existing standards, identify new standards
required for interoperability among interconnected networks, and to enable innovations where smart grid
components (energy sources, bulk generation, storage, distribution, transmission, metering, cyber infrastructure,
markets, service providers, customers, etc.) are supported by a broad range of interoperable options by well-defined
interfaces useful across industries, including security. Emerging/innovative service development with massively
scaled, well-managed, and secured networks will enable a dynamic market driven ecosystem representing new
economic growth (NIST 2010).
This architecture framework is being used today by different standards organizations, such as the Smart Grid
Interoperability Panel (SGIP), and several smart grid working groups. For details on priorities, working programs,
and working group charters, see “High Level Reference Model for the Smart Grid” (NIST 2010).
For service systems, the application of any of these frameworks requires modifications/adaptations to create dynamic
frameworks aware of environmental changes due to competitor’s offerings, market demands, and customer
co-creation. Most frameworks are static in nature; this requires business operations to manage changes through
pre-defined (pre-programmed) processes for service configuration and change control. Dynamic frameworks would
allow real-time, or near real-time, analysis of impacts of newly discovered service on business processes,
organizations, and revenue for run-time environment deployment.
Automatic service configuration and change control are being incorporated into the management process via service
oriented architecture (SOA) for service automation (Gu et al. 2010) and service oriented computing (Maglio et al.
2010). In particular, progress has been made over the last ten years on the standards for adaptation, orchestration and
creation of web services (WS) for service based applications (SBA). A good summary of existing life cycle
approaches for adaptable and evolvable SBA is presented in (Papazoglou et al. 2010). Some examples of this are
• web services development life cycle (SDLC);
• rational unified process (RUP) for SOA;

• service oriented modeling and architecture (SOMA); and
• service oriented analysis and design/decision Modeling (SOAD).
Further research is required to understand the architectural implications of dynamic service configuration, including
research on human behavior, social aspects, governance processes, business processes, and implications of dynamic
service level agreements (SLA) for an enterprise service system. New ways are needed to include adaptation
requirements for new technologies that will exchange information with the service system entities and may have
their own specifications. These technologies include robots, sensors, renewable energy, nanotechnologies, three
dimensional printers, and implantable medical devices.
References
Works Cited
Carroll, N., E. Whelan, and I. Richardson. 2010. "Applying Social Network Analysis to Discover Service Innovation
within Agile Service Networks." Service Science. 2 (4): 225-244.
DoD. 2010. DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF), version 2.0. Arlington, VA, USA: US Department of Defense
(DoD).
Erl, T. 2008. SOA Principles of Service Design. Boston, MA, USA: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education.
eTOM. 2009. "Business Process Framework." Morristown, NJ: TeleManagement Forum. Accessed May 30, 2011 at
http://www.tmforum.org/BusinessProcessFramework/1647/home.html.
Grasso, D., and D. Martinelli. 2007. "Section B: Holistic Engineering." The Chronicle Review, The Chronicles of
Higher Education. Vol. 53, Issue 28. Page 8B. March 2007.
Gu. Q., Cuadrado, F., Lago, P. and Duenãs, J.C. 2010. "Architecture views illustrating the service automation aspect
of SOA". Service research challenges and solutions for the future internet. 339-372.
Hantry, F., M.P. Papazoglou, W. van den Heuvel, R. Haque, E. Whelan, N. Carroll, D. Karastoyanova, F. Leymann,
C. Nikolaou, W. Lamersdorf, and M. Hacid. 2010. "Business Process Management," in Service Research Challenges
and Solutions for the Future Internet S-Cube – Towards Engineering, Managing and Adapting Service-Based
Systems, edited by M. Papazoglou, K. Pohl, M. Parkin, and A. Metzger. Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer-Verlag. 27-54.
HP ITSMRM. 2000. "HP IT Service Management Reference Model. Technical White Paper." Palo Alto, California,
USA: Hewlett – Packard Company. Accessed September 2, 2011. Available: ftp:/ / ftp. hp. com/ pub/ services/ itsm/
info/itsm_rmwp.pdf.
36 (1): 18-20.
National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST). 2010. NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid
Interoperability Standards Release 1.0. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Office of the National Coordinator for Smart Grid
Interoperability, US Department of Commerce. Accessed September 2, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. nist. gov/
smartgrid/upload/FinalSGDoc2010019-corr010411-2.pdf.
OASIS. 2007. "Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0." Organization for Advancement of
Structured Information Standards (OASIS) Standard. Accessed September 2, 2011. Available: http:/ / docs.
oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/OS/webcgm-v2.0.pdf.
Stationery Office.
Papazoglou, M., K. Pohl, M. Parkin, and A. Metzger. 1998. "Service Research Challenges and Solutions for the
Future Internet," in Service Research Challenges and Solutions for the Future Internet S-Cube – Towards
Engineering, Managing and Adapting Service-Based Systems. Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
TOGAF. 2009. "The Open Group Architecture Framework," version 9. The Open Architecture Group. Accessed
September 2, 2011. Available: http://www.opengroup.org/togaf.
Zachman, J. 2003. "The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture: Primer for Enterprise Engineering and
Manufacturing." Accessed September 2, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. zachmanframeworkassociates. com/ index.
php/ebook.
Primary References
Erl, T. 2008. SOA Principles of Service Design. Boston, MA, USA: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education.
Springer-Verlag. p. 27-54.
National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST). 2010. NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid
Interoperability Standards Release 1.0. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Office of the National Coordinator for Smart Grid
Interoperability, US Department of Commerce. Accessed September 2, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. nist. gov/
smartgrid/upload/FinalSGDoc2010019-corr010411-2.pdf.
None.

Service Systems Engineering Stages

This article describes the stages of the service systems development process (SSDP) and expected outputs for each
stage; for a closer alignment with the traditional systems engineering (TSE) process, the concept and feasibility
phases have been combined into a single service strategy/concept as discussed in the SEBoK Systems Engineering
and Management article. All of the stages of the SSDP take a similar iterative approach to fully understand the
enterprise capabilities, enterprise process impact, information technology (IT), and technology impacts and customer
expectations. Lin and Hsieh (2011) provide a good summary on New service Development processes. The
Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) stage names have been purposely added to the SSDP to show
the needed alignment between IT and technology. The reader should keep in mind that even though IT is crucial to
the overall end-to-end system, service technology development needs must be taken into consideration in all the
stages of SSDP.
Service Strategy/Concept
A service strategy/concept is the entry into the SSDP. The concept may be generated by an end-user (enterprise
customer or consumer), a business manager, an engineering organization, new web service designers, new
technology developments, and/or information technology trends. The service concept is the highest level of the
service idea and it usually addresses what service is being proposed to what markets and to whom within these
markets.
A high-level feasibility assessment of the concept is then carried out by the integrated service development team
(ISDT) to assess the needs/impacts on enterprise process capabilities, operational capabilities, and/or new technology
developments (access, infrastructure, operations support systems (OSS), service support systems (SSS), and business
support systems (BSS). It should also consider any impacts on service governance, social, cultural, and human
behaviors. The feasibility assessment also gives a plus or minus 30% estimate on the time to develop and the cost of
development, which are entry points into the business case to evaluate whether the service is viable to develop and to
market given the constraints and estimates. At this time, a decision (decision gate) determines if the service is to be
developed.
If the business case is viable, then a detailed business description of the service is developed. This includes functions
and features to be included, phases of development, markets to be addressed, customers within the markets to be
targeted, and customer experiences expected from the service (i.e., defining the non-functional requirements of the
service, such as the quality of service (QoS), availability, reliability, and security considerations and offerings within
the service). This description allows detailed studies of expected human-computer interactions, social networking,
technology requirements, and operations requirements. Governance and organizational process requirements should
also be included to generate the “service description” as the main output from this stage.
Service systems engineering (SSE) takes an important role in understanding and eliciting the enterprise service
concepts. Clearly, understood end-to-end business processes required for the intended service are fundamental to its
successful development, deployment, and customer satisfaction. SSE works with business process management
(BPM), social science, and cognitive science to elicit intended service operations, including target audiences,
pre-sale, sale, and post-sale customer care processes.
Requirements Analysis and Engineering

A service requirements document is created that describes the service functions, the service entities, the intended
interaction among entities, and the customer-facing and internal-facing functions/processes that are required to
support the service. This description should conceptually include intended service level agreements (SLAs) and the
obligations of the service provider process should there be any degree of non-compliance during service operation.
In addition to the TSE activities described earlier, the SSE requirements analysis and engineering process must
develop a customer-centric view of the service to analyze SLA, QoS, value co-creation, monitoring, and assessment
requirements to comply with the expected/planned SLA. This analysis will determine whether dynamic changes of
the service are required during service operation to correct faults, reconfigure, administer, or to adapt/self-adapt for
possible performance degradations.
Beyond the traditional service life cycle management (LCM) processes, the requirements must also be developed for
service level management (SLM) processes and systems. These are needed to monitor, measure, and assess key
performance indicators (KPIs), technical performance measures (TPMs), and service performance measures (SPMs)
according to the SLA.
The SSE requirements analysis addresses the support systems for the governance, business, service, operations, and
support processes to derive requirements for technologies, information systems, processes, and enterprise
organizations. Interface requirements, information flows, and data requirements are also within the scope of
requirements analysis. The main output is the service requirements document (SRD).
SSE plays a critical role in describing the services needs for day-to-day operations. These include customer care
centers requirements and interfaces between network infrastructure provider(s), content provider(s), service
provider(s), service based application provider(s), and the customer management process for the service. All of these
are described in detail in the service operations plans (SOPs) and the operations technical plans (OTPs).
Systems Design/Development
The SRD, SOP, and OTP have enough detail regarding the service functions, operations, interfaces, and information
flows required among the different service system entities to analyze, identify, and recommend end-to-end
applicable architecture frameworks; to carry out trade-off analyses for the alternatives among service system entities;
and to describe and allocate relationships (interactions) among entities at all levels of the service architecture.
Detailed requirements are worked at lower levels to generate specifications for entity developers including data
structures, data flow diagrams, and allocated performance requirements.
ITIL v. 3 (OGC 2007) recommends inclusion of the following service design processes:
• service catalog management,
• service level management,
• capacity management,
• availability management,
• service continuity management,
• security management, and
• supplier/provider management.
Service Integration, Verification & Validation

SSE defines integration and interface requirements for the seamless operation of the service. In this regard, the
system engineer takes an integrator role to ensure proper data generation and flow through all the different systems
composing the service offered. The goal is to ensure customers (consumer or internal) are getting the information
required to carry out the tasks required in the business, operations, service, and customer processes. The service
integration, verification, and validation plans need to include end-to-end verification and validation procedures for
any new development or adaptations required for planned dynamic configuration/re-configuration of previously
tested service systems. (See also System Verification and System Validation.)
The systems engineer creates these plans using a number of different perspectives. These include:
• end-to-end service (service validation test plans),
• customer care (operational readiness test plans),
• service provider (network validation test plans),
• service system entities interoperability/interface test plans,
• content provider (content validation test plans), and
• application (user acceptance test plans).
Service Transition/Deployment
Service systems may change very rapidly and new enhancements, new features, or new applications can be added as
incremental developments, new developments, or adaptation to service offerings. Service systems engineers review
new requirements to assess the feasibility of the changes to the service system entities, technologies, processes, and
organizations, as well as their impacts on the service offerings. The service transition/deployment stage takes input
from service development to plan for service insertion, technology insertion, processes adaptations, and
implementation with minimal impact to existing services. During this stage, special care is taken with integration,
verification, and validation test plans and regression testing to ensure new developments work flawlessly with
existing services.
ITIL v. 3 (OGC 2007) recommends the following processes in the transition/deployment stage:
• transition planning and support,
• change management,
• service asset and configuration management,
• release and deployment management,
• service validation and testing,
• evaluation, and
• knowledge management.
Service Operations/Continuous Service Improvement (CSI)

Service operation manages the day-to-day activities of all aspects of the end-to-end service delivery to the customer.
It manages the operations, administration, maintenance, and provisioning of the service, technology, and
infrastructure required to deliver the contracted service to the customer within the specified service levels. The main
service operations processes in ITIL v. 3 are
• event management,
• incident management,
• problem management,
• request fulfillment, and
• access management.
A continuous service improvement (CSI) plan for the implementation of technologies and tools for the continuous
improvement of the service, monitoring, measuring, and analyzing process and service metrics is essential.
Service Systems Engineering Tools & Technologies

Tools and technologies from a broad spectrum of fields are extensively used during the different stages of SSE. Not
only are they used for the development of the hardware, software, information systems and technology components,
but also for the modelling, definition, and design of the organization, processes, and data structures of the service
system (See also Representing Systems with Models). These tools and technologies include modelling, simulation,
development, test bed, and social environmental aspects of the intended or to be designed service. The tools fall into
three main domains:
1. business process management (BPM),
2. service design process, and
3. service design management.
Business process management (BPM) generally deals with process management scenarios to coordinate people and
systems, including sequential workflow, straight through processing, case management, content life cycle
management, collaborative process work, and value chain participation. Systems engineers work with service
managers to align the business architectures with the technology and IT architecture. The business process modeling
notation (BPMN) is a graphic notation standard that is implemented to describe a process’s realization within any
given workflow. This notation is linked with web services business process execution language (WS-BPEL), a
format used to perform an automated business process by implementing web services technology. For an extensive
review of existing BPM tools and BPM suites, please see Hantry et al. (2010), Carroll et al. (2010), Andrikoupolous
et al. (2010), Lin and Hsieh (2011), and Ward-Dutton (2010).
Service design process: Architecture frameworks (AF) and enterprise architectures (EAs) are standards that help
split complex systems (see also Complexity) into an interrelated, structured form. They describe the different
characteristics of the products and services. Systems engineering modeling tools, such as the unified modeling
language (UML) (OMG 2010a) and system modeling language (SysML) (OMG 2010b), help develop the AF and
EA and greatly impact the continued evolution and successful implementation of complex projects. Service oriented
architecture (SOA) and systems and software engineering architecture (ISO/IEC/IEEE 2011) are standards that apply
architecture principles for specialized applications. Successful implementation of the architecture tools helps identify
critical interfaces and improves understanding of the allocations between components and functions.
Model-based systems engineering (MBSE), model driven architectures (MDA), and model oriented systems
engineering (MOSES) are examples of commonly used tools for logical (functional), behavioral (operational), and
physical design of the IT. UML, UML 2.0, and SysML are extensively used to describe operational scenarios, modes
of operations, use cases, and entity relationships. For an extensive review of MBSE, MDA, and MOSES, please see
Friedenthal (1998), Estefan (2008), Pezuela (2005), Andrikopoulos et al. (2010), and Hybertson (2010).
In addition, trade-off and engineering analyses use different optimization methodologies. Since services exhibit a
significant level of randomness, statistical analysis, demand forecasting, multi-objective optimization, queuing
theory, and stochastic optimization methodologies are tools used to model and simulate the service system behavior.
These methodologies support decision making in areas as diverse as resource allocation, number of facilities,
facilities' geographical locations, fleet routing and optimization, service systems reliability and prognosis, and
network optimization. A good overview of these methodologies can be found in Daskin (2010).
During the service design process (SDP), planning for the implementation of technologies and tools for the
continuous improvement of the service is performed. These tools support monitoring, measuring, and analyzing
process and service performance metrics. The Deming cycle (plan, do, check, and act (PDCA) is widely used as the
foundation for quality improvements across the service. Lean manufacturing, six sigma, swim lanes, balanced
scoreboard, benchmarking, and gap analysis methodologies are commonly used for service evaluation and
continuous improvement.
Service design management: There are standards for implementing and managing systems engineering processes
(IEEE 1220 (1998)) that help coordinate and synchronize all the service systems engineering processes leading to
improved organizational collaboration and improved service delivery (see also Systems Engineering Standards).
Standards have been developed in software engineering for product evaluation (ISO/IEC 14598 (1998)) and product
quality (ISO/IEC 9126 series (2003a, 2003b, & 2004)), as well as information security management (ISO 27001
(2005)) and evaluation series (ISO 15408 (2008a, 2008b, & 2009)). The ITIL v. 3 describes best practices for IT
service management, which can be extended to include service systems.
References
Works Cited
Adams, S., A. Cartlidge, A. Hanna, S. Rance, J. Sowerby, and J. Windebank. 2009. ITIL V3 Foundation Handbook.
London, England, UK: The Stationary Office.
Parkin, and A. Metzger. Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. p. 271-337.
Carroll, N., E. Whelan, and I. Richardson. 2010. "Applying Social Network Analysis to Discover Service Innovation
within Agile Service Networks." Service Science. 2 (4): 225-244.
Daskin, M.S. 2010. Service Science. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Estefan, J. 2008. A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies, rev B. Seattle, WA, USA:
Friedenthal, S. 1998. "Object Oriented System Engineering: Process Integration for 2000 and beyond." Presented at
System Engineering & Software Symposium, Lockheed Martin Corporation, 1998, New Orleans, LA.
Springer-Verlag. p. 27-54.
Hybertson, D.W. 2009. Model-Oriented Systems Engineering Science: A Unifying Framework for Traditional and
IEEE. 1998. IEEE 1220-1998, IEEE Standard for Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process.
Washington, DC, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
ISO/IEC. 1998. ISO/IEC 14598-5:1998, Information technology — Part 5: Process for evaluators. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission.
ISO/IEC. 2003a. ISO/IEC TR 9126-2:2003, Software engineering — Product quality — Part 2: External metrics.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission.
ISO/IEC. 2003b. ISO/IEC TR 9126-3:2003, Software engineering — Product quality — Part 3: Internal metrics.
ISO/IEC. 2004. ISO/IEC TR 9126-4:2004, Software engineering — Product quality — Part 4: Quality in use
metrics. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical
Commission.
ISO/IEC. 2005. ISO/IEC 27001:2005, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security
management systems — Requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization /
International Electrotechnical Commission.
ISO/IEC. 2008a. ISO/IEC 15408-2:2008, Information technology — Security techniques — Evaluation criteria for
IT security — Part 2: Security functional components. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission.
ISO/IEC. 2008b. ISO/IEC 15408-3:2008, Information technology — Security techniques — Evaluation criteria for
IT security — Part 3: Security assurance components. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
ISO/IEC. 2009. ISO/IEC 15408-1:2009, Information technology — Security techniques — Evaluation criteria for IT
security — Part 1: Introduction and general model. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description.
Lefever, B. 2005. "SeSCE Methodology." Rome, Italy: SeCSE Service Centric Systems Engineering. SeCSE511680.
Lin, F., and P. Hsieh. 2011. "A SAT View on New Service Development." Service Science. 3 (2): 141-157.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). 2007. ITIL Lifecycle Publication Suite Books. London, England, UK: The
Stationery Office.
OMG. 2010a. Unified Modeling Language™ (UML), version 2. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management Group.
Available: http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/.
OMG. 2010b. OMG Systems Modeling Language (SysML), version 1.2. Needham, MA, USA: Object Management
Group. Available: http://www.sysml.org/docs/specs/OMGSysML-v1.2-10-06-02.pdf.
Pezuela, C. 2005. "Collection of Existing Service Centric Prototypes." Report A5.D1. Brussels, Belgium: European
Union, Information Society Technology. Accessed September 5, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. secse-project. eu/
wp-content/uploads/2007/08/a5d1-collection-of-existing-service-centric-prototypes.pdf.
Ward-Dutton, N. 2010. "BPM Technology: Vendor Capability Comparison." MWD Premium Advisory Report.
Horsham, West Sussex, UK: Macehiter Ward-Dutton (MWD) Limited. MWD Advisors. Accessed September 5,
2011. Available: http://www.mwdadvisors.com/library/detail.php?id=380.
Primary References
Estefan, J. 2008. A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies, rev B. Seattle, WA, USA:
Hybertson, D.W. 2009. Model-Oriented Systems Engineering Science: A Unifying Framework for Traditional and
Lefever, B. 2005. "SeSCE Methodology." Rome, Italy: SeCSE Service Centric Systems Engineering. SeCSE511680.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). 2007. ITIL Lifecycle Publication Suite Books. London, England, UK: The
Stationery Office.
None.

664
Knowledge Area: Enterprise Systems

Engineering
Enterprise Systems Engineering

Lead Authors: James Martin, Dick Fairley, Bud Lawson
Enterprise systems engineering (ESE) is the application of systems engineering principles, concepts, and methods to
the planning, design, improvement, and operation of an enterprise.
Topics
• Enterprise Systems Engineering Background
• The Enterprise as a System
• Related Business Activities
• Enterprise Systems Engineering Key Concepts
• Enterprise Systems Engineering Process Activities
• Enterprise Capability Management
Introduction
This knowledge area provides an introduction to systems engineering (SE) at the enterprise level in contrast to
“traditional” SE (TSE) (sometimes called “conventional” or “classical” SE) performed in a development project or to
“product” engineering (often called product development in the SE literature).
The concept of enterprise was instrumental in the great expansion of world trade in the 17th century (see note 1) and
again during the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. The world may be at the cusp of another global
revolution enabled by the information age and the technologies and cultures of the Internet (see note 2). The
discipline of SE now has the unique opportunity of providing the tools and methods for the next round of enterprise
transformations.
Note 1. “The Dutch East India Company… was a chartered company established in 1602, when the
States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was
the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock. It was also arguably the
world's first mega-corporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war,
negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies.” (emphasis added, National Library of the Netherlands
2010)
Note 2. This new revolution is being enabled by cheap and easily usable technology, global availability of
information and knowledge, and increased mobility and adaptability of human capital. The enterprise level of
analysis is only feasible now because organizations can work together to form enterprises in a much more
fluid manner.
ESE is an emerging discipline that focuses on frameworks, tools, and problem-solving approaches for dealing with
the inherent complexities of the enterprise. Furthermore, ESE addresses more than just solving problems; it also
deals with the exploitation of opportunities for better ways to achieve the enterprise goals. A good overall
description of ESE is provided by in the book by Rebovich and White (2011).
Key Terms
Enterprise
An enterprise consists of a purposeful combination (e.g., a network) of interdependent resources (e.g., people,
processes, organizations, supporting technologies, and funding) that interact with
• each other to coordinate functions, share information, allocate funding, create workflows, and make decisions,
etc.; and
• their environment(s) to achieve business and operational goals through a complex web of interactions distributed
across geography and time (Rebovich and White 2011, 4-35).
The term enterprise has been defined as follows:
(1) One or more organizations sharing a definite mission, goals, and objectives to offer an output such
as a product or service. (ISO 2000);
(2) An organization (or cross organizational entity) supporting a defined business scope and mission
that includes interdependent resources (people, organizations and technologies) that must coordinate
their functions and share information in support of a common mission (or set of related missions). (CIO
Council 1999);
(3) The term enterprise can be defined in one of two ways. The first is when the entity being considered
is tightly bounded and directed by a single executive function. The second is when organizational
boundaries are less well defined and where there may be multiple owners in terms of direction of the
resources being employed. The common factor is that both entities exist to achieve specified outcomes.
(MOD 2004); and
(4) A complex, (adaptive) socio-technical system that comprises interdependent resources of people,
processes, information, and technology that must interact with each other and their environment in
support of a common mission. (Giachetti 2010)
An enterprise must do two things: (1) develop things within the enterprise to serve as either external offerings or as
internal mechanisms to enable achievement of enterprise operations, and (2) transform the enterprise itself so that it
can most effectively and efficiently perform its operations and survive in its competitive and constrained
environment.
Enterprise vs Organization
It is worth noting that an enterprise is not equivalent to an "organization” according to the definition above. This is a
frequent misuse of the term enterprise. The figure below shows that an enterprise includes not only the organizations
that participate in it, but also people, knowledge, and other assets such as processes, principles, policies, practices,
doctrine, theories, beliefs, facilities, land, intellectual property, and so on.
Some enterprises are organizations, but not all enterprises are organizations. Likewise, not all organizations are
enterprises. Some enterprises have no readily identifiable "organizations" in them. Some enterprises are
self-organizing (i.e., not organized by mandate) in that the sentient beings in the enterprise will find for themselves
some way in which they can interact to produce greater results than can be done by the individuals alone.
Self-organizing enterprises are often more flexible and agile than if they were organized from above (Dyer and
Ericksen 2009; Stacey 2006).
One type of enterprise architecture that supports agility is a non-hierarchical organization without a
single point of control. Individuals function autonomously, constantly interacting with each other to
define the vision and aims, maintain a common understanding of requirements and monitor the work
that needs to be done. Roles and responsibilities are not predetermined but rather emerge from
individuals’ self-organizing activities and are constantly in flux. Similarly, projects are generated
everywhere in the enterprise, sometimes even from outside affiliates. Key decisions are made
collaboratively, on the spot, and on the fly. Because of this, knowledge, power, and intelligence are
spread through the enterprise, making it uniquely capable of quickly recovering and adapting to the loss
of any key enterprise component. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_agility)
In spite of this lack of "organization" in some enterprises, SE can still contribute much in the engineering of the
enterprise, as described in the articles below. However, SE must be prepared to apply some non-traditional
approaches in doing so. Hence the need for embracing the new discipline called enterprise systems engineering
(ESE).
Giachetti (2010) distinguishes between enterprise and organization by saying that an organization is a view of the
enterprise. The organization view defines the structure and relationships of the organizational units, people, and
other actors in an enterprise. Using this definition, we would say that all enterprises have some type of organization,
whether formal, informal, hierarchical or self-organizing network.
Extended Enterprise
Sometimes it is prudent to consider a broader scope than merely the "boundaries" of the organizations involved in an
enterprise. In some cases, it is necessary (and wise) to consider the "extended enterprise" in modeling, assessment,
and decision making. This could include upstream suppliers, downstream consumers, and end user organizations,
and perhaps even "sidestream" partners and key stakeholders. The extended enterprise can be defined as:
Wider organization representing all associated entities - customers, employees, suppliers, distributors,
etc. - who directly or indirectly, formally or informally, collaborate in the design, development,
production, and delivery of a product (or service) to the end user. (http:/ / www. businessdictionary.
com)
Enterprise Systems Engineering

Enterprise systems engineering (ESE), for the purpose of this article, is defined as the application of SE principles,
concepts, and methods to the planning, design, improvement, and operation of an enterprise (see note 3). To enable
more efficient and effective enterprise transformation, the enterprise needs to be looked at “as a system,” rather than
merely as a collection of functions connected solely by information systems and shared facilities (Rouse 2009).
While a systems perspective is required for dealing with the enterprise, this is rarely the task or responsibility of
people who call themselves systems engineers.
Note 3. This form of systems engineering (i.e., ESE) includes (1) those traditional principles, concepts, and
methods that work well in an enterprise environment, plus (2) an evolving set of newer ideas, precepts, and
initiatives derived from complexity theory and the behavior of complex systems (such as those observed in
nature and human languages).
Creating Value
The primary purpose of an enterprise is to create value for society, other stakeholders, and for the organizations that
participate in that enterprise. This is illustrated in Figure 1 that shows all the key elements that contribute to this
value creation process.
There are three types of organizations of interest: businesses, projects, and teams (see note 4). A typical business
participates in multiple enterprises through its portfolio of projects. Large SE projects can be enterprises in their own
right, with participation by many different businesses, and may be organized as a number of sub-projects.
Note 4. The use of the word “business” is not intended to mean only for-profit commercial ventures. As used
here, it also includes government agencies and not-for-profit organizations, as well as commercial ventures.
Business is the activity of providing goods and services involving financial, commercial, and industrial
aspects.
Figure 1. Organizations Manage Resources to Create Enterprise Value. (SEBoK Original)
Resource Optimization
A key choice for businesses that conduct SE is to what extent, if at all, they seek to optimize their use of resources
(people, knowledge, assets) across teams, projects, and business units. Optimization of resources is not the goal in
itself, but rather a means to achieve the goal of maximizing value for the enterprise and its stakeholders. At one
extreme, in a product-oriented organization, projects may be responsible for hiring, training, and firing their own
staff, as well as managing all assets required for their delivery of products or services. (The term "product-oriented
organization" is not meant in the sense of product-oriented SE, but rather in the sense of this being one of the basic
constructs available when formulating organizational strategy.)
At the other extreme, in a functional organization, the projects delegate almost all their work to functional groups. In
between these two extremes is a matrix organization that is used to give functional specialists a “home” between
project assignments. A full discussion of organizational approaches and situations along with their applicability in
enabling SE for the organization is provided in the article called Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy.
The optimization debate can be handled as described in the book called "Enterprise Architecture as Strategy" (Ross,
Weill, and Robertson 2006). In other words, an enterprise can choose (or not) to unify its operations and can choose
(or not) to unify its information base. There are different strategies the enterprise might adopt to achieve and sustain
value creation (and how ESE helps an enterprise to choose). This is further addressed in the section on Enterprise
Architecture Formulation & Assessment in the article called Enterprise Capability Management.
Enabling Systems Engineering in the Organization

SE skills, techniques, and resources are relevant to many enterprise functions, and a well-founded SE capability can
make a substantial contribution at the enterprise level, as well as at the project level. The article called Systems
Engineering Organizational Strategy discusses enabling SE in the organization, while the article called Enabling
Businesses and Enterprises focuses on the cross-organizational functions at the business and enterprise levels. The
competence of individuals is discussed in the article called Enabling Individuals.
Kinds of Knowledge Used by the Enterprise

Knowledge is a key resource for ESE. There are generally two kinds of knowledge: explicit and tacit. Explicit
knowledge can be written down or incorporated in computer codes. Much of the relevant knowledge, however, is
“tacit knowledge” that only exists within the heads of people and in the context of relationships that people form with
each other (e.g., team, project, and business level knowledge). The ability of an organization to create value is
critically dependent on the people it employs, on what they know, how they work together, and how well they are
organized and motivated to contribute to the organization’s purpose.
Projects, Programs & Businesses

The term “program” is used in various ways in different domains. In some domains a team can be called a program
(e.g., a customer support team is their customer relationship "program"). In others, an entire business is called a
program (e.g., a wireless communications business unit program), and in others the whole enterprise is called a
program (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter program and the Apollo Space program). And in many cases, the terms project
and program are used interchangeably with no discernible distinction in their meaning or scope. Typically, but not
always, there are program managers who have profit and loss (P&L) responsibility and are the ultimate program
decision makers. A program manager may have a portfolio of items (services, products, facilities, intellectual
property, etc.) that are usually provided, implemented, or acquired through projects.
The Office of Government Commerce provides a useful distinction between programs and projects:
The ultimate goal of a Programme is to realise outcomes and benefits of strategic relevance. To achieve
this a programme is designed as a temporary flexible organisation structure created to coordinate,
direct and oversee the implementation of a set of related projects and activities in order to deliver
outcomes and benefits related to the organisation’s strategic objectives...
A programme is likely to have a life that spans several years. A Project is usually of shorter duration (a
few months perhaps) and will be focussed on the creation of a set of deliverables within agreed cost,
time and quality parameters. (OGC 2010)
When it comes to performing SE at the enterprise level, there are several good practices to keep in mind (Rebovich
and White 2011):
• Set enterprise fitness as the key measure of system success. Leverage game theory and ecology, along with the
practices of satisfying and governing the commons.
• Deal with uncertainty and conflict in the enterprise through adaptation: variety, selection, exploration, and
experimentation.
• Leverage the practice of layered architectures with loose couplers and the theory of order and chaos in networks.
Enterprise governance involves shaping the political, operational, economic, and technical (POET) landscape. One
should not try to control the enterprise like one would in a TSE effort at the project level.
References
Works Cited
BusinessDictionary.com, "Extended Enterprise." Accessed September 12, 2012. Available: http:/ / www.
businessdictionary.com/definition/extended-enterprise.html.
CIO Council. 1999. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF). Washington, DC, USA: Chief Information
Officer (CIO) Council.
Dyer, L., and J. Ericksen. 2009. "Complexity-based Agile Enterprises: Putting Self-Organizing Emergence to Work,"
in The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, edited by A. Wilkinson et al. London, UK: Sage. p.
436–457.
Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
ISO. 2000. ISO 15704:2000, Industrial Automation Systems -- Requirements for Enterprise-Reference Architectures
and Methodologies. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
MOD. 2004. Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF), version 2. London, UK: UK Ministry of
Defence.
National Library of the the Netherlands. 2010. "Dossier VOC (1602-1799)." Accessed September 12, 2012.
Available: http://www.kb.nl/dossiers/voc/voc.html (in Dutch).
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). 2010. Guidelines for Managing Programmes: Understanding programmes
and programme management. London, UK: The Stationery Office.
Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Auerbach.
Ross, J.W., P. Weill, and D. Robertson. 2006. Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for
Business Execution. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Rouse, W.B. 2009. "Engineering the Enterprise as a System," in Handbook of Systems Engineering and
Management, 2nd ed., edited by A.P. Sage and W. B. Rouse. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Stacey, R. 2006. "The Science of Complexity: An Alternative Perspective for Strategic Change Processes," in
Complexity and Organization: Readings and Conversations, edited by R. MacIntosh et al. London, UK: Routledge.
p. 74–100.
Wikipedia contributors, "Business agility," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed November 28, 2012.
Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Business_agility&oldid=503858042.
Primary References
Bernus, P., L. Nemes, and G. Schmidt (eds.). 2003. Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. Berlin and Heidelberg,
Rouse, W.B. 2005. "Enterprise as Systems: Essential Challenges and Enterprise Transformation." Systems
Engineering, the Journal of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). 8 (2): 138-50.
Management, 2nd ed., edited by A.P. Sage and W.B. Rouse. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Valerdi, R. and D.J. Nightingale. 2011. "An Introduction to the Journal of Enterprise Transformation." Journal of
Enterprise Transformation. 1 (1): 1-6.
Drucker, P.F. 1994. "The theory of business." Harvard Business Review. 72 (5): 95-104.
Fox, M., J.F. Chionglo, and F.G. Fadel. 1993. "A common sense model of the enterprise." Presented at the 3rd
Industrial Engineering Research Conference, 1993, Norcross, GA, USA.
Joannou, P. 2007. "Enterprise, systems, and software—the need for integration." Computer. 40 (5): 103-105.
Journal of Enterprise Architecture. Available: http://www.globalaea.org/?page=JEAOverview.
MITRE. 2012. "Enterprise Engineering," in Systems Engineering Guide, MITRE Corporation. Accessed 8 July 2012.
Available: http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/enterprise_engineering/.
Nightingale, D., and J. Srinivasan. 2011. Beyond the Lean Revolution: Achieving Successful and Sustainable
Enterprise Transformation. New York, NY, USA: AMACOM Press.
Nightingale, D., and R. Valerdi (eds). Journal of Enterprise Transformation. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Available: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/UJET.
Saenz, O.A. 2005. "Framework for Enterprise Systems Engineering," in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Miami, FL, USA: Florida International University. Accessed September 12, 2012. Available: http:/ /
digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=etd.

Enterprise Systems Engineering Background

Lead Authors: James Martin, Dick Fairley, Bud Lawson, Contributing Author: Alan Faisandier
This article provides a common context for the succeeding topics in the knowledge area.
Capabilities in the Enterprise

The enterprise acquires or develops systems or individual elements of a system. The enterprise can also create,
supply, use, and operate systems or system elements. Since there could possibly be several organizations involved in
this enterprise venture, each organization could be responsible for particular systems or perhaps for certain kinds of
elements. Each organization brings their own organizational capability with them and the unique combination of
these organizations leads to the overall operational capability of the whole enterprise. These concepts are illustrated
below.
Figure 1. Individual Competence Leads to Organizational, System & Operational Capability. (SEBoK Original)
Organizational capabilities are addressed in the article on Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy, and
individual competencies are addressed in the article on Enabling Individuals as they relate to the principles, theories,
and practices of organizational behavior.
Organizational Capabilities and Competencies

The word "capability" is used in systems engineering (SE) in the sense of “the ability to do something useful under a
particular set of conditions.” This article discusses three different kinds of capabilities: organizational capability,
system capability, and operational capability. It uses the word “competence” to refer to the ability of people relative
to the SE task. Individual competence, (sometimes called "competency"), contributes to, but is not the sole
determinant of, organizational capability. This competence is translated to organizational capabilities through the
work practices that are adopted by the organizations. New systems (with new or enhanced system capabilities) are
developed to enhance enterprise operational capability in response to stakeholder’s concerns about a problem
situation.
Enterprise stakeholders are the ultimate arbiters of value for the system to be delivered. Organizational, system, and
operational capabilities cannot be designed, improved, and implemented independently. The key to understanding
the dependencies between capabilities is through architecture modeling and analysis as part of the activities
described in the article called Enterprise Capability Management. “Capability engineering” is an emerging discipline
that could enhance the effectiveness of enterprise systems engineering (ESE), which is further discussed in the article
on Systems of Systems (SoS).
Organizational Design
The competencies of individuals are important to the overall organizational capability as discussed in the article on
Enabling Individuals. The organizational capability is also a function of how the people, teams, projects, and
businesses are organized. The organizational design should specify the roles, authorities, responsibilities, and
accountabilities (RARA) of the organizational units to ensure the most efficient and effective operations.
Effectiveness of enterprise operations is certainly driven by management principles, concepts, and approaches, but it
is also largely driven by its leadership principles, concepts, and approaches. These factors are discussed in the article
on Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy that discusses how to organize for effective performance of SE.
Organizational structure is tightly tied to creating value for the enterprise’s various stakeholders. Since the enterprise
is made up of various elements including people, processes, technologies, and assets, the organizational structure of
the people and the allocation of responsibilities for executing portions of the value stream is a “design decision” for
the enterprise and hence is a key element of properly performing ESE. Organizational design is increasingly
influenced by the portfolio of products and services and the degree of coupling between them. This organizational
design will be based on organizational design patterns and their tradeoffs, as discussed in the article on Systems
Engineering Organizational Strategy. Browning (2009) discusses one approach for modeling and analysis of an
organization.
Operational Capabilities & Operational Services

As you can see in this figure, operational capabilities provide operational services that are enabled by system
capabilities. These system capabilities are inherent in the system that is conceived, developed, created and/or
operated by an enterprise. ESE concentrates its efforts on maximizing operational value for various stakeholders,
some of whom may be interested in the improvement of some problem situation.
ESE, however, addresses more than just solving problems; it also deals with the exploitation of opportunities for
better ways to achieve the enterprise goals. This opportunity might involve lowering of operating costs, increasing
market share, decreasing deployment risk, reducing time to market, and any number of other enterprise goals. The
importance of addressing opportunity potentials should not be underestimated in the execution of ESE practices.
This article focuses on the operational capabilities of an enterprise and the contribution of these capabilities to
operational value (as perceived by the stakeholders). Notice that the organization or enterprise can deal with either
the system as a whole or with only one (or a few) of its elements. These elements are not necessarily hard items, like
hardware and software, but can also include “soft” items, like people, processes, principles, policies, practices,
organizations, doctrine, theories, beliefs, and so on.
Services vs. Products vs. Enterprises

A service system is a collection of items (or entities) that perform the operations, administration, management and
provisioning (OAM&P) of resources that together provide the opportunities to co-create value by both the service
provider and the service consumer.
A collection of services is not necessarily a service system. In fact, this collection of services is often merely a
product system that is one of the resources being OAM&P'ed by the service system. A product system can be
composed of hardware, software, personnel (see note 1), facilities, data, materials, techniques, and even services.
Each of these product system elements can be "engineered."
Note 1. Even personnel are engineered in the sense that their roles and responsibilities are specified precisely
and trade-offs are made about which functions are performed by these people versus by hardware or software.
People are "produced" in the sense that untrained people are trained to perform their allocated system
functions, unknowledgeable people are educated to find or create the information they need to do their
assigned task, and uninformed people are taught how to get access to the data they need, and how to extract
relevant information from that data.
It is important to understand the difference between the services "enabled" by a service system versus the services
that are the elements of a service system entity. See the Service Systems Engineering article for more information
about services and how they are engineered.
Likewise, a collection of services is not necessarily an enterprise system. An enterprise may be composed of service
systems, along with product systems, as well as policies, procedures, properties, knowledge, financial capital,
intellectual capital, and so on. An enterprise might even contain sub-enterprises. Enterprise SE must do the
engineering not only across the enterprise itself, but may also get involved in the engineering of the service systems
and products systems that the enterprise depends on in order to achieve its goals.
Enterprise Components
The above depictions of enterprise-related things do not show the components of an enterprise. The components of
an enterprise when it is viewed as a “system” are different than the components of a product or service system (which
is the focus of most literature on systems engineering). The figure below shows the typical kinds of components
(shown here as “domains”) in an enterprise (Troux 2010) that could be utilized in achieving the desired enterprise
operational capability as shown in Figure 1. It is this operational capability that drives ultimate value for the
enterprise’s customers and other stakeholders. Further discussion on enterprise components is provided by Reese
(2010) and Lawson (2010, chap. 8).
Figure 2. Categories of Enterprise Components (Troux Technologies, 2010). Reprinted with permission of Copyright © 2010 Troux
Technologies. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
The application/software and infrastructure/hardware domains (shown above) are likely the most familiar to systems
engineers. The application/software domain contains things like the deployed software itself plus applications,
modules, servers, patches, functions, and messages. The infrastructure/hardware domain contains things like the
hardware itself plus networks and different kinds of hardware like computing hardware, cabinets, and network
devices. There might different subtypes of computing hardware like computers, servers, desktops, laptops, and
mainframes.
This particular "semantic model" had its origins in the area of information technology (IT) management but has been
successfully expanded beyond the IT domain (Martin 2003 and 2005). You can see from this elaboration of these
domains that an enterprise architecture "schema" can be quite extensive in the kinds of things it can model. The less
technical domains would be things like policy, market, strategy, transition, financial, knowledge and skill, and
analysis. In a typical enterprise architecture schema like this there could be over a hundred types of modeling objects
grouped into these domains.
Various tools used in modeling the enterprise are described at http:/ / www. enterprise-architecture. info/ EA_Tools.
htm (IEAD 2011). The TOGAF metamodel (http:/ / pubs. opengroup. org/ architecture/ togaf9-doc/ arch/ chap34.
html) used in The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) is another useful depiction of the various
modeling entities involved in modeling the enterprise (TOGAF 2009).
Scope of Enterprise SE
Computer and communications technologies make it easier to integrate activities across the enterprise, but this does
not necessarily make the enterprise more effective and efficient. To enable this to happen, one needs to look at the
whole enterprise as a system, rather than as a collection of functions connected solely by information systems and
shared facilities.
Essential Challenges
Enterprises face strategic challenges that are essential to address in order to ensure that the enterprise will succeed
(Rouse 2009):
• Growth: Increasing impact, perhaps in saturated/declining “markets”,
• Value: Enhancing relationships of processes to benefits and costs,
• Focus: Pursuing opportunities and avoiding diversions,
• Change: Competing creatively while maintaining continuity,
• Future: Investing in inherently unpredictable outcomes,
• Knowledge: Transforming information to insights to programs, and
• Time: Carefully allocating the organization’s scarcest resource.
To address these challenges, one recognizes that the central source of value in the enterprise is in its people.
“Understanding and supporting the interests of an enterprise’s diverse stakeholders — and finding the ‘sweet spot’
among the many competing interests — is a central aspect of discerning the work of the enterprise as a system and
creating mechanisms to enhance this work” (Rouse 2009).
Enterprise Transformation
Enterprises are constantly transforming, whether at the individual level (wherein individuals alter their work
practices) or at the enterprise level (large-scale planned strategic changes) (Srinivasan 2010). These changes are a
response on the part of the enterprise to evolving opportunities and emerging threats. It is not merely a matter of
doing work better, but doing different work, which is often a more important result. Value is created through the
execution of business processes. However, not all processes necessarily contribute to overall value (Rouse 2005,
138-150). It is important to focus on process and how they contribute to the overall value stream.
After gaining a good understanding of business processes, the next main concern is how best to deploy and manage
the enterprise’s human, financial, and physical assets. The key challenge in transforming an enterprise is, in the midst
of all this change, continuing to satisfice key stakeholders (see note 2).
Note 2. “Satisfice” means to decide on and pursue a course of action satisfying the minimum requirements to
achieve a goal. For the enterprise as a whole, it is often impossible to completely satisfy all stakeholders given
their competing and conflicting concerns and interests. Therefore, the concept of “satisficing” is a very
important element in the execution of ESE practices. It has less stringent criteria than the concept of
"satisfaction," which is commonly used in product/service systems engineering.
Systems engineers have to respond to an increased recognition of the ‘connectedness’ of products and systems,
brought about by a number of trends, for example: the capability of (mainly digital) technology, working across
multiple systems, to transform businesses and operational systems; the need to create systems in families to increase
product diversity and reuse technology, in order to reduce development and operating costs; and the need to build
systems which can be brought together flexibly in operations, even if such co-operation was not foreseen at the time
of development.
There has also been an increase in collaborative systems development activities, often spanning national boundaries.
This has proceeded alongside a growth in the development of what might be called meta-systems, that is systems
comprising parts which would previously have been considered as complex in their own right a generation ago, now
conceived of and developed as a whole, and thus requiring fresh approaches, of the adaption of old ones.
Tackling these issues requires an approach that transcends the technical and process domain. ESE needs to address
integration at the organizational and value chain level.
Transformation Context
Enterprise transformation occurs in the external context of the economy and markets as shown in the figure below
(Rouse 2009). The “market” for the enterprise can be thought of as the context in which the enterprise operates. Of
course, in the public sector, the enterprise’s “market” is commonly known as its “constituency.”
Figure 3. Context for Enterprise Transformation (Rouse 2009). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights
The term “intraprise” is used here to denote the many systems internal to the enterprise. This includes "information
systems such as... ERP [enterprise resource planning] systems, as well as social and cultural systems. More
specifically, work assignments are pursued via work processes and yield work products, incurring costs" (Rouse
2009). The social and cultural aspects of an enterprise are addressed further in the article called Enabling Businesses
and Enterprises.
Modeling the Enterprise

Models of the enterprise can serve as the basis for understanding the enterprise in its context of markets and
economies. The figure below shows the various drivers (or inputs) of an enterprise and its potential outcomes (or
outputs) (Rouse 2009). Enterprise architecture can be a key enabler for modeling and can serve as a basis for
transformation (Vernadat 1996; Bernus, Laszlo, and Schmidt 2003; Nightingale and Rhodes 2004). Enterprise
architecture can be used to provide a model to understand how the parts of the enterprise fit together (or do not)
(Giachetti 2010) (See also Representing Systems with Models). For a good review of the subject see Lillehagen and
Krogstie (2008).
Figure 4. Drivers and Outcomes for the Enterprise (Rouse 2009). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All other rights
In Pursuit of Value
Based on his theory of enterprise transformation, Rouse (2005, 279-295) has identified four alternative perspectives
that tend to drive the need for transformation:
1. Value Opportunities: The lure of greater success via market and/or technology opportunities prompts
transformation initiatives.
2. Value Threats: The danger of anticipated failure due to market and/or technology threats prompts transformation
initiatives.
3. Value Competition: Other players’ transformation initiatives prompt recognition that transformation is necessary
to continued success.
4. Value Crises: Steadily declining market performance, cash flow problems, etc., prompt recognition that
transformation is necessary for the enterprise to survive.
Work processes can be enhanced, streamlined, eliminated, and invented to help in the pursuit of enhanced value.
These process changes should be aligned with enterprise strategy to maximize value produced by the enterprise
(Hammer and Champy 1993). As shown below, there are many entities involved in helping the enterprise create
value for society, participating organizations, and other stakeholders.
References
Works Cited
Browning, T.R. 2009. "Using the Design Structure Matrix to Design Program Organizations," in Handbook of
Systems Engineering and Management, 2nd ed., edited by A.P. Sage and W.B. Rouse. New York, NY: Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Hammer, M., and J. Champy. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New
York, NY: Harper Business, HarperCollins Publishers.
IEAD. 2011. "Enterprise Architecture Tools." Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments. Accessed
September 12, 2012. Available: http://www.enterprise-architecture.info/EA_Tools.htm.
Lillehagen, F., and J. Krogstie. 2008. "Chapter 4: State of the Art of Enterprise Modelling," in Active Knowledge
Management of Enterprises. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Martin, J.N. 2003. "On the Use of Knowledge Modeling Tools and Techniques to Characterize the NOAA
Observing System Architecture." Presented at 13th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
International Symposium, 2003, Arlington, VA, USA.
Martin, J.N. 2005. "Using an Enterprise Architecture to Assess the Societal Benefits of Earth Science Research."
Presented at 15th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 2005,
Rochester, NY, USA.
Miller, J., and S. Page. 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life.
Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
Reese, R.J. 2010. Troux Enterprise Architecture Solutions. Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing Ltd.
Engineering, the Journal of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). 8 (2): 138-150.
Management, 2nd ed., edited by A.P. Sage and W.B. Rouse. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Srinivasan, J. 2010. "Towards a Theory Sensitive Approach to Planning Enterprise Transformation." Presented at 5th
European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM) Workshop on Organizational Change and
Development, September 23-24, 2010, Vienna, Austria.
TOGAF 2009. "The Open Group Architecture Framework," version 9. The Open Architecture Group. Accessed
September 2, 2011. Available: http://www.opengroup.org/togaf.
Troux. 2010. Metamodeling and modeling with Troux Semantics, version 9. Austin, TX, USA: Troux Technologies.
White, B.E. 2009. "Complex Adaptive Systems Engineering (CASE)." Presented at IEEE Systems Conference,
March 23-26, 2009, Vancouver, Canada.
Primary References
Management, 2nd ed., edited by A.P. Sage and W.B. Rouse. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Srinivasan, J. 2010. "Towards a Theory Sensitive Approach to Planning Enterprise Transformation." Presented at 5th
European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM) Workshop on Organizational Change and
Development, September 23-24, 2010, Vienna, Austria.
White, B.E. 2009. "Complex Adaptive Systems Engineering (CASE)." Presented at IEEE Systems Conference,
March 23-26, 2009, Vancouver, Canada.
McCarter, B.G., and B.E. White. 2009. "Emergence of SoS, sociocognitive aspects," in Systems of systems
engineering: Principles and applications, edited by M. Jamshidi. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis Group. p. 71-105.
Rouse, W.B. 2008. "Health Care as a Complex Adaptive System: Implications for design and management." The
Bridge, National Academy of Engineering. 38 (1): 17-25.
Sage, A.P. 2000. "Transdisciplinarity Perspectives in Systems Engineering and Management," in Transdiciplinarity:
Recreating Integrated Knowledge, edited by M.A. Somerville and D. Rappaport. Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publishers. p.
158-169.
von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, revised ed. New York,
NY, USA: Braziller.
Weinberg, G., and D. Weinberg. 1988. General Principles of Systems Design. New York, NY, USA: Dorset House
Publishing Company. White, B.E. 2007. "On Interpreting Scale (or View) and Emergence in Complex Systems
Engineering." Presented at 1st Annual IEEE Systems Conference, April 9-12, 2007, Honolulu, HI, USA.

The Enterprise as a System

Lead Authors: James Martin, Bud Lawson, Judith Dahmann
To enable more efficient and effective enterprise transformation, the enterprise needs to be looked at “as a system,”
rather than as a collection of functions connected solely by information systems and shared facilities (Rouse 2005
and 2009; Lawson 2010). What distinguishes the design of enterprise systems from product systems is the inclusion
of people as a component of the system, not merely as a user/operator of the system.
The term 'enterprise system' has taken on a narrow meaning of only the information system an
organization uses. Research and project experience has taught us that to design a good enterprise
system, we need to adopt a much broader understanding of enterprise systems. The greater view of
enterprise systems is inclusive of the processes the system supports, the people who work in the system,
and the information [and knowledge] content of the system. (Giachetti 2010)
It is worth noting that the concept of "service" systems also includes people in the system. The thoughts above do not
take this into account, primarily since their perspectives come mainly from a product system experience. The
practice of service systems engineering is relatively new and is an emerging discipline. For more information on this,
see the articles on Service Systems Engineering.
Creating Value
The primary purpose of an enterprise is to create value for society, other stakeholders, and for the organizations that
participate in that enterprise. This is illustrated in Figure 1 that shows all the key elements that contribute to this
value creation process. These elements in the enterprise can be treated as a "system" and the processes, methods, and
tools ESE can be applied.
There are three types of organizations of interest: businesses, projects, and teams (see note 1). A typical business
participates in multiple enterprises through its portfolio of projects. Large SE projects can be enterprises in their own
right, with participation by many different businesses, and may be organized as a number of sub-projects.
Note 1. The use of the word “business” is not intended to mean only for-profit commercial ventures. As used
here, it also includes government agencies and not-for-profit organizations, as well as commercial ventures.
Business is the activity of providing goods and services involving financial, commercial, and industrial
aspects.
Resource Optimization
A key choice for businesses that conduct SE is to what extent, if at all, they seek to optimize their use of resources
(people, knowledge, assets) across teams, projects, and business units. Optimization of resources is not the goal in
itself, but rather a means to achieve the goal of maximizing value for the enterprise and its stakeholders. At one
extreme, in a product-oriented organization, projects may be responsible for hiring, training, and firing their own
staff, as well as managing all assets required for their delivery of products or services. (The term "product-oriented
organization" is not meant in the sense of product-oriented SE, but rather in the sense of this being one of the basic
constructs available when formulating organizational strategy.)
At the other extreme, in a functional organization, the projects delegate almost all their work to functional groups. In
between these two extremes is a matrix organization that is used to give functional specialists a “home” between
project assignments. A full discussion of organizational approaches and situations along with their applicability in
enabling SE for the organization is provided in the article called Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy.
The optimization debate can be handled as described in the book called "Enterprise Architecture as Strategy" (Ross,
Weill, and Robertson 2006). In other words, an enterprise can choose (or not) to unify its operations and can choose
(or not) to unify its information base. There are different strategies the enterprise might adopt to achieve and sustain
value creation (and how ESE helps an enterprise to choose). This is further addressed in the section on Enterprise
Architecture Formulation & Assessment in the article called Enterprise Capability Management.
Enabling Systems Engineering in the Organization

SE skills, techniques, and resources are relevant to many enterprise functions, and a well-founded SE capability can
make a substantial contribution at the enterprise level, as well as at the project level. The article called Systems
Engineering Organizational Strategy discusses enabling SE in the organization, while the article called Enabling
Businesses and Enterprises focuses on the cross-organizational functions at the business and enterprise levels. The
competence of individuals is discussed in the article called Enabling Individuals.
Kinds of Knowledge Used by the Enterprise

Knowledge is a key resource for ESE. There are generally two kinds of knowledge: explicit and tacit. Explicit
knowledge can be written down or incorporated in computer codes. Much of the relevant knowledge, however, is
“tacit knowledge” that only exists within the heads of people and in the context of relationships that people form with
each other (e.g., team, project, and business level knowledge). The ability of an organization to create value is
critically dependent on the people it employs, on what they know, how they work together, and how well they are
organized and motivated to contribute to the organization’s purpose.
Projects, Programs, and Businesses

The term “program” is used in various ways in different domains. In some domains a team can be called a program
(e.g., a customer support team is their customer relationship "program"). In others, an entire business is called a
program (e.g., a wireless communications business unit program), and in others the whole enterprise is called a
program (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter program and the Apollo Space program). And in many cases, the terms project
and program are used interchangeably with no discernible distinction in their meaning or scope. Typically, but not
always, there are program managers who have profit and loss (P&L) responsibility and are the ultimate program
decision makers. A program manager may have a portfolio of items (services, products, facilities, intellectual
property, etc.) that are usually provided, implemented, or acquired through projects.
this a programme is designed as a temporary flexible organisation structure created to coordinate,
Enabling the Enterprise

ESE, by virtue of its inherent trans-disciplinarity (Sage 2000, 158-169) in dealing with problems that are large in
scale and scope, can better enable the enterprise to become more effective and efficient. The complex nature of many
enterprise problems and situations usually goes beyond the abilities of standard tools and techniques provided to
business school graduates (See also Complexity). ESE can augment the standard business management methods
using the tools and methods from the SE discipline to more robustly analyze and evaluate the enterprise as a holistic
system. A more general viewpoint, or “view,” for dealing with the enterprise consisting of scale, granularity, mindset,
and time frame is provided by White (2007) and by McCarter and White (2009, 71-105).
ESE can provide the enablers to address the concerns of enterprise executives as shown in Table 1 (Rouse 2009).
The methods for dealing with, and the special characteristics of, complex adaptive systems must be properly
considered when adapting traditional systems engineering (TSE) practices for use at the enterprise level—many of
which come out of the systems science and systems thinking domains (von Bertalanffy 1968; Weinberg and
Weinberg 1988; Miller and Page 2007; Rouse 2008, 17-25). For an approach to complex adaptive systems (CAS)
engineering, refer to White (2009, 1-16) and to McCarter and White (2009, 71-105).
Table 1. Executive Concerns and SE Enablers (Rouse 2009). Reprinted with permission of
Executive Concerns SE Enablers
Identifying ends, means, and scope and candidate changes System complexity analysis to compare "as is" and "to be" enterprises
Evaluating changes in terms of process behaviors and performance Organizational simulation of process flows and relationships
Assessing economics in terms of investments, operating costs, and Economic modeling in terms of cash flows, volatility, and options
returns
Defining the new enterprise in terms of processes and their Enterprise architecting in terms of workflow, processes, and levels of
integration maturity
Designing a strategy to change the culture for selected changes Organizational and cultural change via leadership, vision, strategy, and
incentives
Developing transformation action plans in terms of what, when, Implementation planning in terms of tasks, schedule, people, and
and who information
Enterprise Engineering
Another distinction is that “enterprise design does not occur at a single point in time like the design of most systems.
Instead, enterprises evolve over time and are constantly changing, or are constantly being designed” (Giachetti 2010)
[emphasis in original]. Giachetti calls this new discipline “enterprise engineering.” We consider the enterprise
engineering set of practices to be equivalent to what we call enterprise systems engineering (ESE) in this article.
The body of knowledge for enterprise engineering is evolving under such titles as enterprise
engineering, business engineering, and enterprise architecture . . . . Many systems and software
engineering principles are applicable to enterprise engineering, but enterprise engineering’s unique
complexities require additional principles…. Enterprise engineering’s intent is to deliver a targeted
level of enterprise performance in terms of shareholder value or customer satisfaction . . . . Enterprise
engineering methods include modeling; simulation; total quality management; change management;
and bottleneck, cost, workflow, and value-added analysis. (Joannou 2007)
Supersystem Constructs
System of Systems (SoS)

The phrase "system of systems” (SoS) is commonly used, but there is no widespread agreement on its exact meaning,
nor on how it can be distinguished from a conventional system. A system is generally understood to be a collection
of elements that interact in such a manner that it exhibits behavior that the elements themselves cannot exhibit. Each
element (or component) of the system can be regarded as a system in its own right. Therefore, the phrase “system of
systems” can technically be used for any system and, as such, would be a superfluous term. However, the meaning of
this phrase has been examined in detail by (Maier 1998, 267-284), and his definition has been adopted by some
people (AFSAB 2005). Maier provides this definition:
A SoS is an assemblage of components which individually may be regarded as systems, and which
possess two additional properties:
• Operational Independence of the Components: If the system-of-systems is disassembled into its component
systems the component systems must be able to usefully operate independently. That is, the components fulfill
customer-operator purposes on their own; and
• Managerial Independence of the Components: The component systems not only can operate independently,
they do operate independently. The component systems are separately acquired and integrated but maintain a
continuing operational existence independent of the system-of-systems. (Maier 1998, 267-284)

Maier goes on further saying that “the commonly cited characteristics of systems-of-systems (complexity of the
component systems and geographic distribution) are not the appropriate taxonomic classifiers” (Maier 1998,
267-284). Four kinds of SoS have been defined (Dahmann, Lane, and Rebovich 2008).
For further details on SoS, see the Systems Engineering Guide for SoS developed by the US Department of Defense
(DoD) (DUS(AT) 2008). Also, see the Systems of Systems (SoS) knowledge area.
Federation of Systems (FoS)

Different from the SoS concept, but related to it in several ways, is the concept called “federation of systems” (FoS).
This concept might apply when there is a very limited amount of centralized control and authority (Sage and Cuppan
2001, 325-345; Sage and Rouse 2009). Each system in an FoS is very strongly in control of its own destiny, but
“chooses” to participate in the FoS for its own good and the good of the “country,” so to speak. It is a coalition of the
willing. An FoS is generally characterized by significant autonomy, heterogeneity, and geographic distribution or
dispersion (Krygiel 1999). Krygiel defined a taxonomy of systems showing the relationships among conventional
systems, SoSs, and FOSs.
This taxonomy has three dimensions: autonomy, heterogeneity, and dispersion. A FoS would have a larger value on
each of these three dimensions than a non-federated SoS. An “Enterprise System,” as described above, could be
considered to be an FoS if it rates highly on these three dimensions. However, it is possible for an enterprise to have
components that are not highly autonomous, that are relatively homogeneous, and are geographically close together.
Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that an enterprise is necessarily the same as an FoS.
Dove points out that in order for a large enterprise to survive in the twenty-first century, it must be more agile and
robust (Dove 1999 and 2001). Handy (1992, 59-67) describes a federalist approach called “New Federalism” which
identifies the need for structuring of loosely coupled organizations to help them adapt to the rapid changes inherent
in the Information Age. This leads to the need for virtual organizations where alliances can be quickly formed to
handle the challenges of newly identified threats and a rapidly changing marketplace (Handy 1995, 2-8). Handy sets
out to define a number of federalist political principles that could be applicable to an FoS. Handy’s principles have
been tailored to the domain of systems engineering (SE) and management by Sage and Cuppan (2001, 325-345):
• Subsidiarity,
• Interdependence,
• Uniform and standardized way of doing business,
• Separation of powers,
• Dual citizenship, and
• Scales of SE.
Scales of SE
According to Maier’s definition, not every enterprise would be called a SoS since the systems within the enterprise
do not usually meet the criteria of operational and managerial independence. In fact, one of the key purposes of an
enterprise is to explicitly establish operational dependence between systems that the enterprise owns and/or operates
in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the enterprise as a whole. Therefore, it is more proper to
treat an enterprise system and an SoS as different types of things, with different properties and characteristics. This
distinction is illustrated in the figure below, where three corresponding categories of SE are shown (DeRosa 2005;
Swarz et al. 2006).
It is true that an enterprise can be treated as a system itself and is comprised of many systems within the enterprise,
but this discussion will reserve the term SoS to those systems that meet the criteria of operational and managerial
independence. This distinction was also used within the MITRE Corporation in their ESE Office (Rebovich and
White 2011).
Figure 2. Different Groupings and Patterns Revealed at Different Scales (DeRosa 2005). Reprinted with permission of © 2011. The MITRE
Corporation. All Rights Reserved. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Relationships between Enterprise and SoS

An enterprise may require a particular operational capability that is brought into being by connecting together a
chain of systems that together achieve that capability. Any one of these systems in the chain cannot by itself provide
this capability. The desired capability is the emergent property of this chain of systems. This chain of systems is
sometimes called an SoS. However, the enterprise that requires this capability rarely has direct control over all the
systems necessary to provide this full capability. This situation is illustrated in the figure below (Martin 2010).
Figure 3. Relationships Between an Enterprise and SoSs (Martin 2010). Reprinted with permission of The Aerospace Corporation. All
Enterprise E1 (in the example above) has full control over SoS2, but not full control over SoS1. TSE can be applied
to the individual systems (S1, S2, …, S53) shown within each enterprise, but needs to be augmented with additional
activities to handle SoS and enterprise kinds of issues.
There is a general issue regarding dealing with enterprises in this situation: there are at least two enterprises related
to any particular SoS. First, there is the enterprise of builders/developers comprising projects and programs, which
have to be organized appropriately and adopt special types of architectural principles. Second, there is the enterprise
of users (those who use the products and service provided by the first enterprise), which has to exercise its own sort
of agility. How the first enterprise designs systems to allow the second to operate is the core issue.
References
Works Cited
AFSAB. 2005. Report on System-of-Systems Engineering for Air Force Capability Development. Washington, DC:
US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (AFSAB), US Air Force. SAB-TR-05-04.
Dahmann, J.S., J.A. Lane, and G. Rebovich. 2008. "Systems Engineering for Capabilities." CROSSTALK: The
Journal of Defense Software Engineering. 21 (11): 4–9.
DeRosa, J.K. 2005. "Enterprise Systems Engineering." Presented at Air Force Association, Industry Day, Day 1,
August 4, 2005, Danvers, MA, USA.
Dove, R. 2001. Response Ability: The Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile Organization. New York, NY,
USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Dove, R. 1999. "Knowledge Management, Response Ability, and the Agile Enterprise," in Paradigm Shift
International [database online]. Accessed September 6, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. parshift. com/ docs/
KmRaAeX.htm.
DUS(AT). 2008. Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems, version 1.0. Washington, DC, USA: Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (DUS(AT)) / US Department of Defense (DoD).
Accessed September 6, 2011. Available: http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/SE-Guide-for-SoS.pdf.
Handy, C. 1995. "Trust and the Virtual Organization." Harvard Business Review. 73 (3): 2-8.
Handy, C. 1992. "Balancing Corporate Power: A New Federalist Paper." Harvard Business Review. 70 (6): 59-67.
Joannou, P. 2007. "Enterprise, Systems, and Software—The Need for Integration." Computer. 40 (5): 103-105.
Krygiel, A.J. 1999. Behind the Wizard's Curtain: An Integration Environment for a System of Systems. Arlington,
VA, USA: C4ISR Cooperative Research Program (CCRP).
Maier, M.W. 1998. "Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems." Systems Engineering, the Journal of the
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). 1 (4): 267-84.
Martin, J.N. 2010. "An Enterprise Systems Engineering Framework." Presented at 20th Anniversary International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 12-15, 2010, Chicago, IL, USA.
McCarter, B.G., and B.E. White. 2009. "Emergence of SoS, sociocognitive aspects," in Systems of systems
engineering: Principles and applications, edited by M. Jamshidi. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis Group. p. 71-105.
Ross, J.W., P. Weill, and D. Robertson. 2006. Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for
Business Execution. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Rouse, W.B. 2009. "Engineering the Enterprise as a System," in Handbook of systems engineering and management,
2nd ed., edited by A.P. Sage and W.B. Rouse. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Rouse, W.B. 2008. "Health Care as a Complex Adaptive System: Implications for design and management." The
Bridge, National Academy of Engineering. 38 (1): 17-25.
Sage, A.P. 2000. "Transdisciplinarity Perspectives in Systems Engineering and Management." in Transdiciplinarity:
Recreating Integrated Knowledge, edited by M.A. Somerville and D. Rappaport. Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publishers. p.
158-169.
Sage, A., and C. Cuppan. 2001. "On the Systems Engineering and Management of Systems of Systems and
Federations of Systems." Information-Knowledge-Systems Management Journal. 2 (4): 325-345.
Sage, A.P., and W.B. Rouse (eds). 2009. Handbook of System Engineering and Management, 2nd ed. New York,
NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Swarz, R.S., J.K. DeRosa, and G. Rebovich. 2006. "An Enterprise Systems Engineering Model." Proceedings of the
INCOSE International Symposium, July 9-13, 2006, Orlando, FL, USA.
von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, revised ed. New York,
NY, USA: Braziller.
Weinberg, G., and D. Weinberg. 1988. General Principles of Systems Design. New York, NY: Dorset House
Publishing Company.
White, B.E. 2007. "On Interpreting Scale (or View) and Emergence in Complex Systems Engineering." Presented at
1st Annual IEEE Systems Conference, 9-12 April, 2007, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Primary References
Joannou, P. 2007. "Enterprise, Systems, and Software—The Need for Integration." Computer. 40 (5): 103-105.
Rouse, W.B. 2009. "Engineering the Enterprise as a System," in Handbook of systems engineering and management,
2nd ed., edited by A.P. Sage and W.B. Rouse. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Arnold, S., and H. Lawson. 2004. "Viewing Systems From a Business Management Perspective." Systems
Engineering. 7 (3): 229.
Beimans, F.P.M., M.M. Lankhorst, W.B. Teeuw, and R.G. van de Wetering. 2001. "Dealing with the Complexity of
Business Systems Architecting." Systems Engineering. 4 (2): 118-33.
Nightingale, D., and D. Rhodes. 2004. "Enterprise systems architecting: Emerging art and science within engineering
systems." Presented at Engineering Systems Symposium, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 29-31
March, 2004, Boston, MA, USA.
Rebovich, G. 2006. "Systems Thinking for the Enterprise: New & Emerging Perspectives." Presented at IEEE/SMC
International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, April 2006, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Rechtin, E. 1999. Systems Architecting of Organizations: Why Eagles can't Swim. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Ring, J. 2004. "Intelligent Enterprises." INCOSE INSIGHT. 6 (2).

Ring, J. 2004. "Seeing an Enterprise as a System." INCOSE INSIGHT. 6(2).
Valerdi, R., D. Nightingale, and C. Blackburn. 2009. "Enterprises as Systems: Context, Boundaries, and Practical
Implications." Information-Knowledge-Systems Management Journal. 7 (4): 377-399.

Related Business Activities

Lead Authors: James Martin, Dick Fairley, Bud Lawson
The following business management activities can be supported by enterprise systems engineering (ESE) activities:
• mission and strategic planning,
• business processes and information Management,
• performance management,
• portfolio management,
• resource allocation and budgeting, and
• program and project management.
Introduction
The figure below shows how these business activities relate to each other as well as the relative scope of ESE and
product systems engineering (PSE) (Martin 2010 and 2011). PSE is mainly involved at the project level and
collaborates with project management activities, and gets somewhat involved in program management and the
resource allocation and budgeting activities. On the other hand, ESE is heavily involved in the higher level activities
from the program management level and up. Both ESE and PSE have key roles to play in the enterprise.
Figure 1. Related Business Activities (Martin 2010). Reprinted with permission of The Aerospace Corporation. All other rights are reserved by the
copyright owner.
Shown in this manner, these business activities can be considered to be separate processes with a clear precedence in
terms of which process drives other processes. TSE uses “requirements” to specify the essential features and
functions of a system. An enterprise, on the other hand, typically uses goals and objectives to specify the
fundamental characteristics of desired enterprise operational capabilities. The enterprise objectives and strategies are
used in portfolio management to discriminate between options and to select the appropriate balanced portfolio of
systems and other enterprise resources.
The first three activities listed above are covered in Enabling Businesses and Enterprises. The other business
management activities are described in more detail below in regards to how they relate to ESE.
Business Management Cycles

PDCA stands for "plan-do-check-act" and is a commonly used iterative management process as seen in the figure
below. It is also known as the Deming circle or the Shewhart cycle after its two key proponents (Deming 1986;
Shewhart 1939). ESE should use the PDCA cycle as one of its fundamental tenets. For example, after ESE develops
the enterprise transformation plan, execution of the planned improvements are monitored (i.e., “checked” in the
PDCA cycle) to ensure they achieve the targeted performance levels. If not, then action needs to be taken (i.e., “act”
in the PDCA cycle) to correct the situation and re-planning may be required. ESE can also use the PDCA cycle in its
support of the 'business as usual' efforts, such as the annual budgeting and business development planning activities.
Figure 2. PDCA Cycle. (Source: http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/

PDCA. Accessed July 2010. Diagram by Karn G. Bulsuk (http:/ /
blog. bulsuk. com). Used through a CC BY 3.0 license (http:/ /
creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by/ 3. 0/ ).
It is also worth mentioning the utility of using Boyd's OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, and act) to augment
PDCA. This could be accomplished by first using the OODA loop (http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ OODA_loop),
which is continuous in situation awareness, and then followed by using the PDCA approach, which is discrete,
having goals, resources, usually time limits, etc. (Lawson 2010).
Portfolio Management
Program and project managers direct their activities as they relate to the systems under their control. Enterprise
management, on the other hand, is involved in directing the portfolio of items that are necessary to achieving the
enterprise goals and objectives. This can be accomplished by using portfolio management:
Project Portfolio Management (PPM) is the centralized management of processes, methods, and
technologies used by project managers and project management offices (PMOs) to analyze and
collectively manage a group of current or proposed projects based on numerous key characteristics. The
objectives of PPM are to determine the optimal resource mix for delivery and to schedule activities to
best achieve an organization’s operational and financial goals―while honoring constraints imposed by
customers, strategic objectives, or external real-world factors. (http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/
Project_portfolio_management)
The enterprise may not actually own these portfolio items. They could rent or lease these items, or they could have
permission to use them through licensing or assignment. The enterprise may only need part of a system (e.g., one
bank of switching circuits in a system) or may need an entire system of systems (SoS) (e.g., switching systems,
distribution systems, billing systems, provisioning systems, etc.). Notice that the portfolio items are not just those
items related to the systems that systems engineering (SE) deals with. These could also include platforms (like ships
and oil drilling derricks), facilities (like warehouses and airports), land and rights of way (like railroad property
easements and municipal covenants), and intellectual property (like patents and trademarks).
The investment community has been using portfolio management for a long time to manage a set of investments to
maximize return for a given level of acceptable risk. These techniques have also been applied to a portfolio of
“projects” within the enterprise (Kaplan 2009). However, it should be noted that an enterprise is not merely a
portfolio of projects. The enterprise portfolio consists of whatever systems, organizations, facilities, intellectual
property, and other resources that are needed to help the enterprise achieve its goals and objectives.
Portfolio management in the context of ESE is well addressed in the following article: http:/ / www. mitre. org/
work/ systems_engineering/ guide/ enterprise_engineering/ enterprise_planning_management/
portfolio_management.html (MITRE 2010).
Resource Allocation and Budgeting

The resource allocation and budgeting (RA&B) activity is driven by the portfolio management definition of the
optimal set of portfolio elements. Capability gaps are mapped to the elements of the portfolio, and resources are
assigned to programs (or other organizational elements) based on the criticality of these gaps. Resources come in the
form of people and facilities, policies and practices, money and energy, and platforms and infrastructure. Allocation
of resources could also involve the distribution or assignment of corporate assets, like communication bandwidth,
manufacturing floor space, computing power, intellectual property licenses, and so on. Resource allocation and
budgeting is typically done on an annual basis, but more agile enterprises will make this a more continuous process.
Some of the resource allocation decisions deal with base operational organizations that are not project related.
It is sometimes the case that RA&B is part of portfolio management (PfM). But as can be seen in Figure 1, it is
sometimes useful and practical to separate these two activities. PfM usually recommends changes to the enterprise
portfolio, but RA&B takes these PfM considerations into mind along with inputs from the business process and
information management and the performance management activities. Furthermore, PfM is usually an annual or
biannual activity whereas RA&B is often done more frequently. RA&B may need to execute ad hoc when
perturbations happen, such as funding cuts, schedule slips, performance targets missed, strategic goals changed, and
so on.
Program and Project Management

Within the enterprise, TSE is typically applied inside a project to engineer a single system (or perhaps a small
number of related systems). If there is a SoS or a large, complex individual system to be engineered, then this might
be handled at the program level, but is sometimes handled at the project level, depending on the size and complexity
of the system-of-interest (See also Complexity).
There are commonly three basic types of projects in an enterprise. A development project takes a conceptual notion
of a system and turns this into a realizable design. A production project takes the realizable design for a system and
turns this into physical copies (or instantiations). An operations “project” directly operates each system or supports
the operation by others. (Base operations are sometimes called "line organizations" and are not typically called
projects per se, but should nonetheless be considered as key elements to be considered when adjusting the enterprise
portfolio.) The operations project can also be involved in maintaining the system or supporting maintenance by
others. A program can have all three types of projects active simultaneously for the same system, as in this example:
• Project A is developing System X version 3.
• Project B is operating and maintaining System X version 2.
• Project C is maintaining System X version 1 in a warehouse as a backup in case of emergencies.
Project management uses TSE as a tool to ensure a well-structured project and to help identify and mitigate cost,
schedule, and technical risks involved with system development and implementation. The project level is where the
TSE process is most often employed (Martin 1997; ISO/IEC/IEEE 2015; Wasson 2006; INCOSE 2010; Blanchard
and Fabrycky 2010).
this, a programme is designed as a temporary flexible organisation structure created to coordinate,
Enterprise Governance
ESE is also concerned with the way in which organizations and embedded management and technical functions work
together to achieve success at the enterprise level. Governance frameworks provide the essential additional structure
and controls needed to both ‘steer a steady ship’ (during business as usual) and to ‘plot a course to a new place’
(during business transformation).
Such frameworks can be designed by recognizing that there are enduring management concerns that need to be
addressed and by applying the principle of economy. For example, a particular concern for most organizations is
linking the control of projects to business drivers and objectives. This leads to a requirement for a governance body
to both approve the initiation of projects, and to regularly review their progress, continuing relevance, and if
necessary, mutual coherence in the light of developments inside and outside the enterprise.
This might be achieved by delegating some or all of the roles; depending on circumstances, the enterprise might be
driven towards top-down or a more collective, peer-to-peer approach—or even a combination of the two for different
functions. Governance bodies and management roles can be engineered in this way against a common set of
management concerns. Governance may also include the maintenance of common technical standards and their
promulgation and use throughout relevant projects. See Bryant (2012) for more information on governance.
Multi-Level Enterprises
An enterprise does not always have full control over the ESE processes. In some cases, an enterprise may have no
direct control over the resources necessary to make programs and projects successful. For example, the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) is responsible for the “smooth operation of the Internet,” yet it controls none of the
requisite resources.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international community of network
designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture
and the smooth operation of the Internet. … The actual technical work of the IETF is done in its
working groups, which are organized by topic into several areas (e.g., routing, transport, security, etc.).
Much of the work is handled via mailing lists. The IETF holds meetings three times per year. (IETF
2010a)
The IETF has “influence” over these resources even though it does not have direct control: "The IETF is unusual in
that it exists as a collection of happenings, but is not a corporation and has no board of directors, no members, and no
dues" (IETF 2010b).
The ESE processes might be allocated between a “parent” enterprise and “children” enterprises, as shown in the
figure below (Martin 2010). The parent enterprise, in this case, has no resources. These resources are owned by the
subordinate child enterprises. Therefore, the parent enterprise does not implement the processes of resource
allocation and budgeting, program management, and project management.
The parent enterprise may have an explicit contract with the subordinate enterprises, or, as in some cases, there is
merely a “working relationship” without the benefit of legal obligations. The parent enterprise will expect
performance feedback from the lower level to ensure that it can meet its own objectives. Where the feedback
indicates a deviation from the plan, the objectives can be adjusted or the portfolio is modified to compensate.
Figure 3. Parent and Child Enterprise Relationships (Martin 2010). Reprinted with permission of The Aerospace Corporation.
All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Enterprises X, Y, and Z in the situation shown above will cooperate with each other to the extent that they honor the
direction and guidance from the parent enterprise. These enterprises may not even be aware of each other, and, in
this case, would be unwittingly cooperating with each other. The situation becomes more complex if each enterprise
has its own set of strategic goals and objectives as shown in the figure below.
Figure 4. Mission and Strategic Planning at All Levels of Cooperating Enterprises (Martin 2010). Reprinted with permission of The
Aerospace Corporation. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
These separate, sub-enterprise objectives will sometimes conflict with the objectives of the parent enterprise.
Furthermore, each subordinate enterprise has its own strategic objectives that might conflict with those of its
siblings. The situation shown here is not uncommon, and illustrates an enterprise of enterprises, so to speak. This
highlights the need for the application of SE at the enterprise level to handle the complex interactions and understand
the overall behavior of the enterprise as a whole. TSE practices can be used, to a certain extent, but these need to be
expanded to incorporate additional tools and techniques.
References
Works Cited
Bryant, P. 2012. "Modelling Governance within Business Architecture using Topic Mapping." Presented at 22nd
Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 9-12, 2012, Rome,
Italy.
Blanchard, B.S., and W.J. Fabrycky. 2011. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:
Prentice-Hall.
Deming, W.E. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, MIT Center for Advance Engineering
Study.
IETF. 2010a. "Overview of the IETF," in Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society (ISOC) [database
online]. Accessed September 6, 2011. Available: http://www.ietf.org/overview.html.
IETF. 2010b. "The Tao of IETF: A Novice’s Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force
(draft-hoffman-tao4677bix-10)," in Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society (ISOC) [database online].
Accessed September 6, 2011. Available: http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#intro.

Systems Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
ISO/IEC/IEEE 2015. Systems and Software Engineering -- System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
15288:2015.
Kaplan, J. 2009. Strategic IT portfolio management: Governing enterprise transformation. Waltham, Massachusetts,
USA: Pittiglio, Rabin, Todd & McGrath, Inc. (PRTM).
Martin, J.N. 2011. "Transforming the Enterprise Using a Systems Approach." Presented at 21st Anniversary
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, June 20-23, 2011, Denver, CO,
USA.
Martin, J.N. 1997. Systems Engineering Guidebook: A Process for Developing Systems and Products, 1st ed. Boca
MITRE. 2012. "Enterprise Engineering," in Systems Engineering Guide. Bedford, MA, USA: MITRE Corporation.
Accessed July 8, 2012. Available: http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/
enterprise_engineering/.
Shewhart, W.A. 1939. Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. New York, NY, USA: Dover
Publications.
Wasson, C.S. 2006. System Analysis, Design and Development. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Primary References
Martin, J.N. 2011. "Transforming the Enterprise Using a Systems Approach." Presented at 21st Anniversary
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, June 20-23, 2011, Denver, CO,
USA.
Arnold, S., and H. Lawson. 2004. "Viewing Systems from a Business Management Perspective." Systems
Engineering. 7 (3): 229.
Beimans, F.P.M., M.M. Lankhorst, W.B. Teeuw, and R.G. van de Wetering. 2001. "Dealing with the Complexity of
Business Systems Architecting." Systems Engineering. 4 (2): 118-133.
Drucker, P.F. 1994. "The Theory of Business." Harvard Business Review. 72 (5): 95-104.
Haeckel, S.H. 2003. "Leading on demand businesses–Executives as architects." IBM Systems Journal. 42 (3):
405-13.
Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. 1996. The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Cambridge, MA, USA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Lissack, M.R. 2000. "Complexity Metaphors and the Management of a Knowledge Based Enterprise: An
Exploration of Discovery." PhD Dissertation in Business Administration. Henley-on-Thames, UK: Henley
Management College, University of Reading.
Rechtin, E. 1999. Systems Architecting of Organizations: Why Eagles Can't Swim. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC

Enterprise Systems Engineering Key Concepts

Lead Authors: James Martin, Bud Lawson, Alan Faisandier
The purpose of traditional systems engineering (TSE) is to bring together a diversity of discipline experts to address
a wide range of problems inherent in the development of a large, complex “single” system (Blanchard and Fabrycky
2010; Hall 1989; Sage and Rouse 2009). Enterprise systems engineering (ESE) expands beyond this traditional basis
to “consider the full range of SE services increasingly needed in a modern organization where information-intensive
systems are becoming central elements of the organization’s business strategy” (Carlock and Fenton 2001, 242-261).
The traditional role of systems engineering (SE) is heavily involved in system acquisition and implementation,
especially in the context of government acquisition of very large, complex military and civil systems (e.g., F22
fighter jet and air traffic control systems).
ESE encompasses this traditional role in system acquisition, but also incorporates enterprise strategic planning and
enterprise investment analysis (along with others as described below). These two additional roles for SE at the
enterprise level are “shared with the organization’s senior line management, and tend to be more entrepreneurial,
business-driven, and economic in nature in comparison to the more technical nature of classical systems engineering”
(Carlock and Fenton 2001, 242-261).
Closing the Gap

ESE practices have undergone significant development recently.
Today the watchword is enterprise systems engineering, reflecting a growing recognition that an
'enterprise' may comprise many organizations from different parts of government, from the private and
public sectors, and, in some cases, from other nations. (MITRE 2004)
Rebovich (2006) says there are “new and emerging modes of thought that are increasingly being recognized as
essential to successful systems engineering in enterprises.” For example, in addition to the TSE process areas,
MITRE has included the following process areas in their ESE process (DeRosa 2005) to close the gap between ESE
and PSE:
• strategic technical planning,
• enterprise architecture,
• capabilities-based planning analysis,
• technology planning, and
• enterprise analysis and assessment.
These ESE processes are shown in the context of the entire enterprise in the figure below (DeRosa 2006). The ESE
processes are shown in the middle with business processes on the left and TSE processes on the right. These business
processes are described in the article called Related Business Activities. The TSE processes are well documented in
many sources, especially in the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 standard (2015).
Figure 1. Enterprise SE Process Areas in the Context of the Entire Enterprise (DeRosa 2006). Reprinted with permission of © 2011. The
MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
SE is viewed by many organizations and depicted in many process definitions as bounded by the beginning and end
of a system development project. In MITRE, this restricted definition was referred to as TSE. Many have taken a
wider view seeking to apply SE to the “whole system” and “whole life cycle.” For example, Hitchins (1993) sets out a
holistic, whole-life, wider system view of SE centered on operational purpose. Elliott and Deasley (2007) discuss the
differences between development phase SE and in-service SE.
In contrast to TSE, the ESE discipline is more like a “regimen” (Kuras and White 2005) that is responsible for
identifying “outcome spaces,” shaping the development environment, coupling development to operations, and
rewarding results rather than perceived promises (DeRosa 2005). ESE must continually characterize the operational
environmental and the results of enterprise or SoS interventions to stimulate further actions within and among
various systems in the enterprise portfolio. Outcome spaces are characterized by a set of desired capabilities that help
meet enterprise objectives, as opposed to definitive “user requirements” based on near-term needs. Enterprise
capabilities must be robust enough to handle unknown threats and situations in the future. A detailed description of
previous MITRE views on ESE can be found in a work by Rebovich and White (2011).
Role of Requirements in ESE

TSE typically translates user needs into system requirements that drive the design of the system elements. The
system requirements must be “frozen” long enough for the system components to be designed, developed, tested,
built, and delivered to the end users (which can sometimes take years, and in the case of very large, complicated
systems like spacecraft and fighter jets, more than a decade).
ESE, on the other hand, must account for the fact that the enterprise must be driven not by requirements (that rarely
can even be defined, let alone made stable), but instead by continually changing organizational visions, goals,
governance priorities, evolving technologies, and user expectations. An enterprise consists of people, processes, and
technology where the people act as “agents” of the enterprise:
Ackoff has characterized an enterprise as a 'purposeful system' composed of agents who choose both
their goals and the means for accomplishing those goals. The variety of people, organizations, and their
strategies is what creates the inherent complexity and non-determinism in an enterprise. ESE must
account for the concerns, interests and objectives of these agents. (Swarz, DeRosa, and Rebovich 2006)
(See also Complexity)
Whereas TSE focuses on output-based methodologies (e.g., functional analysis and object-oriented analysis), ESE is
obligated to emphasize outcomes (e.g., business analysis and mission needs analysis), especially those related to the
enterprise goals and key mission needs.
Enterprise Entities and Relationships

An enterprise “system” has different entities and relationships than you might find in a product/service system (see
note 1). These can be usefully grouped into two categories: asset items and conceptual items. An example of an asset
is hardware and software. Examples of conceptual items are things like analysis, financial elements, markets,
policies, process, and strategy.
Note 1. An “enterprise system” should not be confused with the enterprise “perceived as a system.” An
enterprise system is a product (or service) system used across the enterprise, such as payroll, financial
accounting, or enterprise resource planning applications, and consolidated data center, data warehouse, and
other such facilities and equipment used across one or more organizations.
Products and services are sometimes treated as “assets” as shown in the figure below (Troux 2010). This
categorization of enterprise items comes from the semantic model (i.e., metamodel) used in the Troux Architect
modeling tool for characterization and analysis of an enterprise architecture. Other enterprise entities of interest are
things like information, knowledge, skills, finances, policies, process, strategy, markets, and resources, but these are
categorized as "concept" items (in this particular schema). Further details on how to use this metamodel's entities and
relationships are provided by Reese (2010).
Table 1. Asset Domain and Concept Domain Categories for Enterprise Entities. (Troux
2010) Reprinted with permission of Copyright © 2010 Troux Technologies. All other rights
Asset Domains Concept Domains
Application and Software Domain Data Domain Document Domain Analysis Domain Financial Domain General Domain Information
Infrastructure and Hardware Domain IT Product Domain IT Service Domain IT Architecture Domain Knowledge and Skill Domain Market
Domain Location Domain Organization Domain Product and Service Domain Policy Domain Process Domain Resource Domain Strategy
Domain Services Portfolio Management Domain Domain Timeline Domain Transition Domain
The application/software and infrastructure/hardware domains are likely the most familiar to systems engineers (as
illustrated in the figure below). The application/software domain contains things like the deployed software itself,
plus applications, modules, servers, patches, functions, and messages. The infrastructure/hardware domain contains
things like the hardware itself, plus networks and different kinds of hardware like computing hardware, cabinets, and
network devices. There might be different subtypes of computing hardware like computers, servers, desktops,
laptops, and mainframes. You can see from this elaboration of these domains that an enterprise architecture
"schema" can be quite extensive in the kinds of things it can model.
Figure 2. Example of Enterprise Entities & Relationships (Troux 2010). Reprinted with permission of Copyright © 2010 Troux Technologies. All
The less technical domains would be things like policy, market, strategy, transition, financial, knowledge and skill,
and analysis. In a typical enterprise architecture schema like this, there could be over a hundred types of modeling
objects grouped into these domains. The examples give above are from the Troux Semantics metamodel used in the
Troux Architect modeling tool for enterprise architecture activities. Other enterprise modeling tools have similar
metamodels (sometimes called “schemas”). See Reese (2010) for more details on how to use the metamodel shown in
the figure above.
Enterprise Architecture Frameworks & Methodologies

Enterprise architecture frameworks are collections of standardized viewpoints, views, and models that can be used
when developing architectural descriptions of the enterprise. These architecture descriptions can be informal, based
on simple graphics and tables, or formal, based on more rigorous modeling tools and methods. ISO/IEC 42010
(2011) specifies how to create architecture descriptions.
These frameworks relate to descriptive models of an enterprise, with conventions agreed in particular communities.
There are various frameworks and methodologies available that assist in the development of an enterprise
architecture.
Urbaczewski and Mrdalj (2006) provide an overview and comparison of five prominent architectural frameworks,
including:
• the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture (Zachman 1992),
• the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) (DoD 2010),
• the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) (FEA 2001),
• the Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (TEAF) (US Treasury 2000),
• and The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) (TOGAF 2009).
References
Works Cited
Blanchard, B.S., and W.J. Fabrycky. 2011. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:
Prentice-Hall.
Carlock, P., and R. Fenton. 2001. "System of Systems (SoS) Enterprise Systems Engineering for
Information-Intensive Organizations." Systems Engineering. 4 (4): 242-261.
CIO Council. 1999. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), version 1.1. Washington, DC, USA:
Federal Chief Information Officers Council.
DoD. 2010. DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF), version 2.0. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD).
Elliott, C., and P. Deasley. 2007. Creating Systems that Work--Principles of Engineering Systems for the 21st
Century. London, England, UK: Royal Academy of Engineering.
FEA. 2001. "Federal Enterprise Architecture – Practical Guide, version 1.0, February 2001." Available: https:/ /
secure.cio.noaa.gov/hpcc/docita/files/a_practical_guide_to_federal_enterprise_architecture.pdf.
Friedman, G., and A.P. Sage. 2004. "Case Studies of Systems Engineering and Management in Systems
Acquisition." Systems Engineering. 7 (1): 84-96.
Hall, A.D. 1989. Metasystems Methodology: A New Synthesis and Unification, 1st ed. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Hitchins, D. 1993. Putting Systems to Work. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Kuras, M.L., and B.E. White. 2005. "Engineering Enterprises Using Complex-Systems Engineering." Annotated
presentation at 15th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July
10-15, 2005, Rochester, NY, USA.
MITRE. 2004. MITRE 2004 Annual Report". McLean, VA, USA: MITRE Corporation.
Rebovich, G. 2006. "Systems Thinking for the Enterprise: New & Emerging Perspectives." Presented at IEEE/SMC
International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, April 2006, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
Reese, R.J. 2010. Troux Enterprise Architecture Solutions. Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing Ltd.
Sage, A.P., and W.B. Rouse (eds). 2009. Handbook of System Engineering and Management, 2nd ed. New York,
16th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 9-13, 2006,
Orlando, FL, USA.
TOGAF. 2009. "The Open Group Architecture Framework," version 9. Accessed September 7, 2011. Available:
http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/.
Troux. 2010. Metamodeling and modeling with Troux Semantics, version 9. Austin, TX, USA: Troux Technologies.
Urbaczewski, L., and S. Mrdalj. 2006. "A Comparison of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks." Issues in
Information Systems. 7 (2): 18-26.
US Treasury. 2000. Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework, version 1. Washington, DC, USA: US
Department of the Treasury Chief Information Officer Council.
Zachman, J.A. 1987. "A Framework for Information Systems Architectures." IBM Systems Journal. 26 (3): 276-92.
Primary References
Kuras, M.L., and B.E. White. 2005. "Engineering Enterprises Using Complex-Systems Engineering." Annotated
presentation at 15th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July
10-15, 2005, Rochester, NY, USA.
Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
16th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 9-13, 2006,
Orlando, FL, USA.
Journal of Enterprise Architecture. Available: http://www.globalaea.org/?page=JEAOverview.
Minoli, D. 2008. Enterprise Architecture A to Z: Frameworks, Business Process Modeling, SOA, and Infrastructure
Technology. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, An Auerbach Book.
TRAK. 2011. "TRAK Enterprise Architecture Framework." Accessed September 7, 2011. Available: http:/ / trak.
sourceforge.net/index.html.
Vernadat, F.B. 1996. Enterprise Modelling and Integration - Principles and Applications. London, UK: Chapman
and Hall.

Enterprise Systems Engineering Process

Activities
The application of the key concepts of Enterprise Systems Engineering requires processes. These processes span and
can transform the enterprise.
Systems Engineering Role in Transforming the Enterprise
Enabling Systematic Enterprise Change

The systems engineering (SE) process as applied to the enterprise as a whole could be used as the “means for
producing change in the enterprise … [where the] … Seven Levels of change in an organization [are defined] as
effectiveness, efficiency, improving, cutting, copying, differentiating and achieving the impossible” (McCaughin and
DeRosa 2006). The essential nature of enterprise systems engineering (ESE) is that it “determines the balance
between complexity and order and in turn the balance between effectiveness and efficiency. When viewed as the
fundamental mechanism for change, it goes beyond efficiency and drives adaptation of the enterprise” (McCaughin
and DeRosa 2006). McCaughin and DeRosa (2006) provide a reasonably good definition for an enterprise that
captures this notion of balance:
Enterprise: People, processes and technology interacting with other people, processes and technology,
serving some combination of their own objectives, those of their individual organizations and those of
the enterprise as a whole.
Balancing Effectiveness versus Efficiency

Ackoff tells us that:
Data, information, knowledge and understanding enable us to increase efficiency, not effectiveness. The
value of the objective pursued is not relevant in determining efficiency, but it is relevant in determining
effectiveness. Effectiveness is evaluated efficiency. It is efficiency multiplied by value. Intelligence is the
ability to increase efficiency; wisdom is the ability to increase effectiveness.
The difference between efficiency and effectiveness is reflected in the difference between development
and growth. Growth does not require an increase in value; development does. Therefore, development
requires an increase in wisdom as well as understanding, knowledge and information. ((Ackoff 1989,
3-9), emphasis added)
ESE has a key role to play in establishing the right balance between effectiveness and efficiency in enterprise
operations and management. Value stream analysis is one technique, among others, that can help ESE determine
where inefficiencies exist or ineffective results are being achieved.
Value Stream Analysis

Value stream analysis is one way of treating the enterprise as a system. It provides insights regarding where in the
sequence of enterprise activities value is added as it moves towards the final delivery to customer or user (Rother and
Shook 1999). It relates each step to the costs entailed in that step in terms of resource consumption (i.e., money,
time, energy, and materials). In addition to direct costs, there may also be indirect costs due to overhead factors or
infrastructure elements. This activity commonly involves drawing a flowchart of the value stream for the enterprise
as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 1. Value Stream Example. (Source: http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Value_stream_mapping Accessed September 6, 2010. US EPA
Lean and Environment Toolkit, Public Domain.)
Analysis of this value stream diagram can highlight unnecessary space, excessive distance traveled, processing
inefficiencies, and so on. Value stream mapping is associated with so-called “lean enterprise” initiatives. At Toyota,
where the technique originated, it is known as “material and information mapping” (Rother 2009). Various value
stream mapping tools are available (Hines and Rich 1997).
Enterprise Management Process Areas

Martin (2010) has determined that the following four processes are needed in ESE beyond the traditional SE
processes in support of enterprise management activities:
1. Strategic technical planning,
2. Capability-based planning analysis,
3. Technology and standards planning, and
4. Enterprise evaluation and assessment.
The interactions between these four processes are illustrated below, along with their interactions with other processes
that deal with architecture, requirements, risk, and opportunity.
Figure 2. Enterprise Systems Engineering Process Activities. (SEBoK Original)
Strategic Technical Planning

The purpose of strategic technical planning (STP) is to establish the overall technical strategy for the enterprise. It
creates the balance between the adoption of standards (see also Systems Engineering Standards) and the use of new
technologies, along with consideration of the people aspects driven by the relevant trans-disciplinary technical
principles and practices from psychology, sociology, organizational change management, etc.
This process uses the roadmaps developed during technology and standards planning (TSP). It then maps these
technologies and standards against the capabilities roadmap to determine potential alignment and synergy.
Furthermore, lack of alignment and synergy is identified as a risk to avoid or an opportunity to pursue in the
technical strategy. The technical strategy is defined in terms of implementation guidance for the programs and
projects.
One reason that STP and TSP are separate processes is that they are often done by different groups in the enterprise
and they involve different skill sets. TSP is often done by the technology and science groups. TSP is done closer to
(if not in) the chief architect and budget planning groups. Sometimes the great technology proposed by TSP just
doesn’t line up with the capabilities needed in the requisite time frame. STP does this balancing between technology
push and capability pull.
Capability-Based Planning Analysis

The purpose of Capability-based Planning Analysis is to translate the enterprise vision and goals into a set of current
and future capabilities that helps achieve those goals. Current missions are analyzed to determine their suitability in
supporting the enterprise goals. Potential future missions are examined to determine how they can help achieve the
vision. Current and projected capabilities are assessed to identify capability gaps that prevent the vision and technical
strategy from being achieved. These capability gaps are then used to assess program, project, and system
opportunities that should be pursued by the enterprise. This is defined in terms of success criteria of what the
enterprise is desired to achieve.
There are different types of capabilities, as shown in the figure below. It is common practice to describe capabilities
in the form of capability hierarchies and capability roadmaps. Technology roadmaps (discussed below under
Technology Planning) are usually related to the system capabilities while business capability roadmaps (BCRMs) are
related to the operational capabilities of the enterprise as a whole (ref: Business-Capability Mapping: Staying Ahead
of the Joneses, http:/ / msdn. microsoft. com/ en-us/ library/ bb402954. aspx). The BCRM development is usually
done as part of enterprise strategic planning, which is one level higher than, and a key driver for, the strategic
technical planning activity described above.
In some domains there may be competency roadmaps dealing with the organizational capabilities, with perhaps the
desired competency levels of individuals mapped out in terms of the jobs or roles used in the enterprise or perhaps in
terms of the knowledge and skills required for certain activities. (For more information on systems engineering
competency, see the Enabling Individuals article.)
Figure 3. Organizational, System & Operational Capabilities. (SEBoK Original)
Technology and Standards Planning

The purpose of Technology Planning is to characterize technology trends in the commercial marketplace and the
research community. This activity covers not just trend identification and analysis, but also technology development
and transition of technology into programs and projects. It identifies current, and predicts future, technology
readiness levels for the key technologies of interest. Using this information, it defines technology roadmaps. This
activity helps establish the technical strategy and implementation guidance in the strategic technical plan. The
business capabilities roadmap (BCRM) from the strategic planning activity is used to identify which technologies
can contribute to achieved targeted levels of performance improvements.
The purpose of Standards Planning is to assess technical standards to determine how they inhibit or enhance the
incorporation of new technologies into systems development projects. The future of key standards is forecast to
determine where they are headed and the alignment of these new standards with the life cycles for the systems in the
enterprise’s current and projected future portfolios. The needs for new or updated standards are defined and resources
are identified that can address these needs. Standardization activities that can support development of new or updated
standards are identified (See also Systems Engineering Standards).
Enterprise Evaluation and Assessment

The purpose of enterprise evaluation and assessment (EE&A) is to determine if the enterprise is heading in the right
direction. It does this by measuring progress towards realizing the enterprise vision. This process helps to “shape the
environment” and to select among the program, project, and system opportunities. This is the primary means by
which the technical dimensions of the enterprise are integrated into the business decisions.
This process establishes a measurement program as the means for collecting data for use in the evaluation and
assessment of the enterprise. These measures help determine whether the strategy and its implementation are
working as intended. Measures are projected into the future as the basis for determining discrepancies between what
is observed and what had been predicted to occur. This process helps to identify risks and opportunities, diagnose
problems, and prescribe appropriate actions. Sensitivity analysis is performed to determine the degree of robustness
and agility of the enterprise.
Roberts states that EE&A must go beyond traditional system evaluation and assessment practices (Roberts 2006). He
says that this process area:
must de-emphasize the utility of comparing detailed metrics against specific individual requirement
values, whether the metrics are derived from measurement, simulation or estimation… [it] must instead
look for break points where capabilities are either significantly enhanced or totally disabled.
Key characteristics of this activity are the following:
• Multi-scale analysis,
• Early and continuous operational involvement,
• Lightweight command and control (C2) capability representations,
• Developmental versions available for assessment,
• Minimal infrastructure,
• Flexible modeling and simulation (M&S), operator-in-the-loop (OITL), and hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL)
capabilities, and
• In-line, continuous performance monitoring and selective forensics. (Roberts 2006)
Enterprise architecture (EA) can be used as a primary tool in support of evaluation and assessment. EA can be
used to provide a model to understand how the parts of the enterprise fit together (or do not) (Giachetti 2010).
The structure and contents of the EA should be driven by the key business decisions (or, as shown in the
six-step process presented by Martin (2005), the architecture should be driven by the “business questions” to
be addressed by the architecture).
The evaluation and assessment success measures can be put into the EA models and views directly and
mapped to the elements that are being measured. An example of this can be seen in the US National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) EA shown by Martin (2003a and 2003b). The measures are
shown, in this example, as success factors, key performance indicators, and information needs in the business
strategy layer of the architecture.
EA can be viewed as either the set of artifacts developed as “views” of the enterprise, or as a set of activities
that create, use, and maintain these artifacts. The literature uses these terms in both senses and it is not always
clear in each case which sense is intended.
Enterprise Portfolio Considerations
Opportunity Assessment and Management

The management activities dealing with opportunities (as opposed to just risk) are included in ESE. According to
White (2006), the “greatest enterprise risk may be in not pursuing enterprise opportunities.” Hillson believes there is:
a systemic weakness in risk management as undertaken on most projects. The standard risk process is
limited to dealing only with uncertainties that might have negative impact (threats). This means that risk
management as currently practiced is failing to address around half of the potential uncertainties—the
ones with positive impact (opportunities). (Hillson 2004)
White claims that “in systems engineering at an enterprise scale the focus should be on opportunity, and that
enterprise risk should be viewed more as something that threatens the pursuit of enterprise opportunities” (White
2006). The figure below (Rebovich and White 2011, chapter 5) shows the relative importance of opportunity and risk
at the different scales of an individual system, a system of systems (SoS), and an enterprise. The implication is that,
at the enterprise level, there should be more focus on opportunity management than on risk management.
Figure 4. Risk & Opportunity at the Enterprise Scale versus the Systems Scale (White 2006). MITRE Approved for Public Release;
Distribution Unlimited. Unique Tracking #05-1262.
Enterprise Architecture and Requirements

EA goes above and beyond the technical components of product systems to include additional items such as strategic
goals and objectives, operators and users, organizations and other stakeholders, funding sources and methods,
policies and practices, processes and procedures, facilities and platforms, infrastructure, and real estate. EA can be
used to provide a model to understand how the parts of the enterprise fit together (or don’t) (Giachetti 2010). The EA
is not strictly the province of the chief information officer (CIO), and is not only concerned with information
technology. Likewise, enterprise requirements need to focus on the cross-cutting measures necessary to ensure
overall enterprise success. Some of these enterprise requirements will apply to product systems, but they may also
apply to business processes, inter-organizational commitments, hiring practices, investment directions, and so on
(Bernus, Nemes, and Schmidt 2003).
Architecture descriptions following the guidelines of an architecture framework have been used to standardize the
views and models used in architecting efforts (Zachman 1987 and 1992; Spewak 1992). Architecture descriptions
have also been developed using a business-question based approach (Martin 2003b; Martin 2006). The standard on
Architecture Description Practices (ISO/IEC 42010) (ISO/IEC 2011) has expanded its scope to include requirements
on architecture frameworks.
Government agencies have been increasingly turning to SE to solve some of their agency-level (i.e., enterprise)
problems. This has sometimes led to the use of an architecture-based investment process, especially for information
technology procurements. This approach imposes a requirement for linking business strategies to the development of
EAs. The Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) (CIO Council 1999) and the DoD Architecture
Framework (DoDAF) (DoD 2010) were developed to support such an architecture-based investment process. There
have been several other architecture frameworks also developed for this purpose (ISO 2000; ISO/IEC 1998; NATO
2004; TOGAF 2009; MOD 2010; TRAK 2010).
ESE Process Elements

As a result of the synthesis outlined above, the ESE process elements to be used at the enterprise scale are as
follows:
1. Strategic Technical Planning,
2. Capability-Based Planning Analysis,
3. Technology and Standards Planning,
4. Enterprise Evaluation and Assessment,
5. Opportunity and Risk Assessment and Management,
6. Enterprise Architecture and Conceptual Design,
7. Enterprise Requirements Definition and Management,
8. Program and Project Detailed Design and Implementation,
9. Program Integration and Interfaces,
10. Program Validation and Verification,
11. Portfolio and Program Deployment and Post Deployment, and
12. Portfolio and Program Life Cycle Support.
The first seven of these elements were described in some detail above. The others are more self-evident and are not
discussed in this article.
References
Works Cited
Ackoff, R.L. 1989. "From Data to Wisdom." Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 16 (1): 3-9.
Bernus, P., L. Nemes, and G. Schmidt (eds.). 2003. Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. Berlin and Heidelberg,
CIO Council. 1999. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), Version 1.1. Washington, DC, USA:
Federal Chief Information Officers Council.
DoD. 2010. DoD architecture framework (DoDAF), version 2.0. Washington, DC: US Department of Defense
(DoD).
Hillson, D. 2004. Effective Opportunity Management for Projects: Exploiting Positive Risk. Petersfield, Hampshire,
UK; New York, NY, USA: Rick Doctor & Partners; Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Hines, P., and N. Rich. 1997. "The Seven Value Stream Mapping Tools." International Journal of Operations &
Production Management. 1 (17): 46-64.
ISO. 2000. ISO 15704:2000, Industrial Automation Systems — Requirements for Enterprise-Reference Architectures
and Methodologies. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
ISO/IEC. 1998. ISO/IEC 10746:1998, Information Technology — Open Distributed Processing — Reference
Model: Architecture. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
Martin, J.N. 2006. "An Enterprise Architecture Process Incorporating Knowledge Modeling Methods." PhD
dissertation. Fairfax, VA, USA: George Mason University.
Rochester, NY, USA.
Martin, J.N. 2003a. "An Integrated Tool Suite for the NOAA Observing System Architecture." Presented at 13th
Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 2003, Arlington, VA,
USA.
Martin, J.N. 2003b. "On the Use of Knowledge Modeling Tools and Techniques to Characterize the NOAA
McCaughin, K., and J.K. DeRosa. 2006. "Process in Enterprise Systems Engineering." Presented at 16th Annual
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 9-13, 2006, Orlando, FL,
USA.
MOD. 2010. Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF), version 1.2.004. London, England, UK: UK
Ministry of Defence. Accessed September 8, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. mod. uk/ NR/ rdonlyres/
04B5FB3F-8BBC-4A39-96D8-AFA05E500E4A/0/20100602MODAFDownload12004.pdf.
NATO. 2010. NATO Architecture Framework (NAF), version 3.1. Brussels, Belgium: North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
Roberts, J.L. 2006. "Enterprise Analysis and Assessment." Presented at 16th Annual International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 9-13, 2006, Orlando, FL, USA.
Rother, M. 2009. Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness, and Superior Results. New York,
Rother, M., and J. Shook. 1999. Learning to See: Value-Stream Mapping to Create Value and Eliminate MUDA.
Cambridge, MA, USA: Lean Enterprise Institute.
Spewak, S.H. 1992. Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications and
Technology. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
TOGAF. 2009. "The Open Group Architecture Framework," version 9. Accessed September 2, 2011. Available:
http://www.opengroup.org/togaf.
TRAK. 2011. "TRAK Enterprise Architecture Framework." Accessed September 7, 2011. Available: http:/ / trak.
sourceforge.net/index.html.
White, B.E. 2006. "Enterprise Opportunity and Risk." Presented at 16th Annual International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 9-13, 2010, Orlando, FL, USA.
Zachman, J.A. 1987. "A Framework for Information Systems Architectures." IBM Systems Journal. 26 (3): 276-292.
Primary References
Holt, J., and S. Perry. 2010. Modelling enterprise architectures. Stevenage, England, UK: Institution of Engineering
and Technology (IET).
Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Cambridge, MA, USA:
Harvard Business School Press.
McGovern, J., S. Ambler, M. Stevens, J. Linn, V. Sharan, and E. Jo. 2004. A Practical Guide to Enterprise
Architecture. New York, NY, USA: Prentice Hall.
Swarz, R.S., J.K. DeRosa, and G. Rebovich. 2006. "An Enterprise Systems Engineering Model." INCOSE
Symposium Proceedings, July 9-13, 2006, Orlando, FL, USA.

Enterprise Capability Management

Introduction
There are three different kinds of capability: organizational capability, system capability, and operational capability.
Management of organizational capability is addressed in the article called Enabling Businesses and Enterprises.
Management of system capability is addressed by the Systems Engineering (SE) management activities described in
the articles called Systems Engineering Management and Product and Service Life Management. Management of
operational capability is described herein.
Figure 1. Three Kinds of Capability in the Enterprise: Organizational, System & Operational Capability. (SEBoK Original)
The enterprise has a current and planned (baseline) operational capability, based on its past activities and on its
current plans for change. The purpose of the enterprise capability management function is to ensure the possibility of
“vectoring” the enterprise away from the current baseline trajectory to a more desirable position where it can better
meet its enterprise strategic goals and objectives, given all its resource constraints and other limitations.
Operational capability may need to include elements identified in the Information Technology Infrastructure Library
(ITIL) best practices for operations management, starting with strategic operation planning (OGC 2009).
The ITIL is a set of practices for IT service management (ITSM) that focuses on aligning IT services
with the needs of business. In its current form …, ITIL is published in a series of five core publications,
each of which covers an ITSM lifecycle stage.
ITIL describes procedures, tasks and checklists that are not organization-specific, used by an
organization for establishing a minimum level of competency. It allows the organization to establish a
baseline from which it can plan, implement, and measure. It is used to demonstrate compliance and to
measure improvement. (http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/
Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library).
Needs Identification & Assessment

The enterprise has key stakeholders that have operational needs they would like the enterprise to address. These
operational needs must be identified and assessed in terms of their relevance to the enterprise and the relative
priorities of these needs compared to each other and to the priorities of the enterprise itself. The enterprise exists to
meet these needs. An operational need is an expression of something desirable in direct support of the enterprise’s
end user activities. End user activities include such things as retail sales, entertainment, food services, and business
travel. An example of an operational need is: “Provide transportation services to commuters in the metropolitan area
of London.”
Enterprise needs can be much more than eliminating waste, and the challenge for ESE might relate to any or all of
the following: countering a perceived threat (business or military), meeting a policy goal (as in government), doing
existing business more efficiently, taking advantage of technological opportunities, meeting new operational needs,
replacing obsolete systems, creating integrated enterprises with others (on a temporary or permanent basis), and so
on.
In addition to operational needs, there are enterprise needs that relate to enabling assets the enterprise has in place
that allow the mission to be accomplished. Enabling assets are things such as personnel, facilities, communication
networks, computing facilities, policies and practices, tools and methods, funding and partnerships, equipment and
supplies, and so on. An enterprise need is an expression of something desirable in direct support of the enterprise’s
internal activities. Internal activities include such things as market forecast, business development, product
development, manufacturing, and service delivery.
The purpose of the enterprise’s enabling assets is to effect state changes to relevant elements of the enterprise
necessary to achieve targeted levels of performance. The enterprise “state” shown in the figure below is a complex
web of past, current and future states (Rouse 2009). The enterprise work processes use these enabling assets to
accomplish their work objectives in order to achieve the desired future states. Enterprise architecture (EA) can be
used to model these states and the relative impact each enabling asset has on the desired state changes.
Figure 2. Enterprise State Changes Through Work Process Activities (Rouse 2009). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. All
Enterprise needs are related to the enterprise efficiencies achieved through the performance of enterprise activities.
The main goal of enterprise needs is to maximize the efficient utilization of enterprise assets, or in other words,
enhance productivity, and find and eliminate waste. Waste represents that which does not contribute to the enterprise
mission or that cannot reasonably be expected to be accomplished by the enterprise. An example of an enterprise
need is: “Decrease power required for operation of enterprise data centers.” (Power is a limited asset that consumes
scarce enterprise funds that could be used for delivery of other more valuable services to its customers.)
Capability Identification & Assessment

The capabilities of an enterprise should exist for the sole purpose of meeting mission and enterprise needs. Hence,
there will be both mission and enterprise capabilities to identify and assess how well they meet these needs. An
example of an operational capability is: “Transport 150,000 passengers per hour among 27 nodes in the network.” A
supporting enterprise capability might be: “Process 200,000 tickets per hour during peak loading.” There is a baseline
capability due to capability development up to that point in time, plus any additional capability planned for the
future. The desired levels of capability (based on needs assessment) are compared to the baseline capability to
determine the capability gaps for the enterprise. This activity will also determine points of excess capability.
The gaps should be filled and the excesses should be eliminated. The projected gaps and excesses are sometimes
mapped into several future timeframes to get a better understanding of the relative timing and intensity of change
that might be required. It is typical to use time “buckets” like near-term, mid-term, and far-term, which, for some
long-lasting capabilities, might correspond to five, ten, and twenty years out respectively. Of course, for
fast-changing capabilities (like consumer products) these timeframes would necessarily be shorter in duration, for
example, one, two and three years out.
Enterprise Architecture Formulation & Assessment

Enterprise architecture analysis can be used to determine how best to fill these capability gaps and minimize the
excess capabilities (or “capacities”). Usually a baseline architecture is characterized for the purpose of understanding
what one currently has and where the enterprise is headed under the current business plans. The needs and gaps are
used to determine where in the architecture elements need to be added, dropped, or changed. Each modification
represents a potential benefit to various stakeholders, along with associated costs and risks for introducing that
modification. Enterprise architecture can be used to provide a model to understand how the parts of the enterprise fit
together (or do not) (Giachetti 2010).
The enterprise architecture effort supports the entire capability management activity with enterprise-wide views of
strategy, priorities, plans, resources, activities, locations, facilities, products, services, and so on (ISO/IEC/IEEE
15288 (ISO/IEC/IEEE 2015) and architectural design process: ISO/IEC 42010 (ISO/IEC 2011) and ISO 15704 (ISO
2000)).
Opportunity Identification & Assessment

The enterprise architecture is used to help identify opportunities for improvement. Usually these opportunities
require the investment of time, money, facilities, personnel, and so on. There might also be opportunities for
“divestment,” which could involve selling of assets, reducing capacity, canceling projects, and so on. Each
opportunity can be assessed on its own merits, but usually these opportunities have dependencies and interfaces with
other opportunities, with the current activities and operations of the enterprise, and with the enterprise's partners.
Therefore, the opportunities may need to be assessed as a “portfolio,” or, at least, as sets of related opportunities.
Typically, a business case assessment is required for each opportunity or set of opportunities.
Enterprise Portfolio Management

If the set of opportunities is large or has complicated relationships, it may be necessary to employ portfolio
management techniques. The portfolio elements could be bids, projects, products, services, technologies, intellectual
property, etc., or any combination of these items. Examples of an enterprise portfolio captured in an architecture
modeling tool can be found in Martin (2005), Martin et al. (2004), and Martin (2003). See Kaplan's work (2009) for
more information on portfolio management, and ISO/IEC (2008) for information on projects portfolio management
process.
Enterprise Improvement Planning & Execution

The results of the opportunity assessment are compiled and laid out in an enterprise plan that considers all relevant
factors, including system capabilities, organizational capabilities, funding constraints, legal commitments and
obligations, partner arrangements, intellectual property ownership, personnel development and retention, and so on.
The plan usually goes out to some long horizon, typically more than a decade, depending on the nature of the
enterprise’s business environment, technology volatility, market intensity, and so on. The enterprise plan needs to be
in alignment with the enterprise’s strategic goals and objectives and with leadership priorities.
The planned improvements are implemented across the enterprise and in parts of the extended enterprise (glossary)
where appropriate, such as suppliers in the supply chain, distributors in the distribution chain, financiers in the
investment arena, and so on. The planned changes should have associated performance targets and these metrics
should be monitored to ensure that progress is being made against the plan and that the intended improvements are
being implemented. As necessary, the plan is adjusted to account for unforeseen circumstances and outcomes.
Performance management of enterprise personnel is a key element of the improvement efforts.
Enterprise Capability Change Management

In an operational context (particularly in defense) the term “capability management” is associated with developing
and maintaining all aspects of the ability to conduct certain types of missions in a given threat environment. In an
industrial context, capability refers to the ability to manage certain classes of product and service through those parts
of their life cycle that are relevant to the business. Changes to enterprise capability should be carefully managed to
ensure that current operations are not adversely affected (where possible) and that the long term viability of the
enterprise is maintained. The following seven lenses can be used to facilitate change management: strategic
objectives, stakeholders, processes, performance metrics, current state alignment, resources, and maturity assessment
(Nightingale and Srinivasan 2011).
Capability management is becoming more often recognized as a key component of the business management tool
suite:
Capability management aims to balance economy in meeting current operational requirements, with the
sustainable use of current capabilities, and the development of future capabilities, to meet the sometimes
competing strategic and current operational objectives of an enterprise. Accordingly, effective
capability management assists organizations to better understand, and effectively integrate, re-align and
apply the total enterprise ability or capacity to achieve strategic and current operational objectives; and
develops and provides innovative solutions that focus on the holistic management of the defined array of
interlinking functions and activities in the enterprise's strategic and current operational contexts.
(Saxena 2009, 1)
There is a widespread perception that capability management is only relevant to defense and aerospace domains.
However, it is becoming more widely recognized as key to commercial and civil government efforts.
References
Works Cited
ISO. 2000. ISO 15704:2000, Industrial Automation Systems — Requirements for Enterprise — Reference
Architectures and Methodologies. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Kaplan, J. 2009. Strategic IT Portfolio Management: Governing Enterprise Transformation. Waltham, MA, USA:
Pittiglio, Rabin, Todd & McGrath, Inc. (PRTM).
Rochester, NY, USA.
Martin, J.N. 2003. "On the Use of Knowledge Modeling Tools and Techniques to Characterize the NOAA
Martin, J.N., J. Conklin, J. Evans, C. Robinson, L. Doggrell, and J. Diehl. 2004. "The Capability Integration
Framework: A New Way of doing Enterprise Architecture." Presented at 14th Annual International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, June 20-24, 2004, Toulouse, France.
Stationery Office.
Saxena, M.S. 2009. Capability Management: Monitoring & Improving Capabilities. New Dehli: Global India
Publications Pvt Ltd.
Wikipedia contributors. "Information Technology Infrastructure Library." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Accessed November 28, 2012. Available at: http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/
Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library.
Primary References
Kaplan, J. 2009. Strategic IT Portfolio Management: Governing Enterprise Transformation. Waltham, MA, USA:
Pittiglio, Rabin, Todd & McGrath, Inc. (PRTM).
Dahmann, J.S., J.A. Lane, and G. Rebovich. 2008. "Systems Engineering for Capabilities." CROSSTALK: The
Journal of Defense Software Engineering 21 (11): 4-9.
Hillson, D. 2004. Effective Opportunity Management for Projects: Exploiting Positive Risk. Petersfield, Hampshire,
UK; New York, NY: Rick Doctor & Partners; Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Lillehagen, F., J. Kostie, S. Inella, H.G. Solheim, and D. Karlsen. 2003. "From enterprise modeling to enterprise
visual scenes." Presented at International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) Conference on Concurrent
Engineering (CE), July 26-30, 2003, Madeira Island, Portugal.
McGovern, J., S. Ambler, M. Stevens, J. Linn, V. Sharan, and E. Jo. 2004. A Practical Guide to Enterprise
Architecture. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Rechtin, E. 1999. Systems Architecting of Organizations: Why Eagles Can't Swim. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Roberts, J.L. 2006. "Enterprise Analysis and Assessment." Presented at 16th Annual International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 9-13, 2006, Orlando, FL, USA.

717
Knowledge Area: Systems of Systems (SoS)
Systems of Systems (SoS)

Lead Authors: Mike Henshaw, Judith Dahmann, Bud Lawson
System of systems engineering (SoSE) is not a new discipline; however, this is an opportunity for the systems
engineering community to define the complex systems of the twenty-first century (Jamshidi 2009). While systems
engineering is a fairly established field, SoSE represents a challenge for the present systems engineers on a global
level. In general, SoSE requires considerations beyond those usually associated with engineering to include
socio-technical and sometimes socio-economic phenomena.
Topics
• Architecting Approaches for Systems of Systems
• Socio-Technical Features of Systems of Systems
• Capability Engineering
Characteristics and Definitionof Systems of Systems

Maier (1998) postulated five key characteristics (not criteria) of SoS: operational independence of component
systems, managerial independence of component systems, geographical distribution, emergent behavior, and
evolutionary development processes, and identified operational independence and managerial independence as the
two principal distinguishing characteristics for applying the term 'systems-of-systems.' A system that does not
exhibit these two characteristics is not considered a system-of-systems regardless of the complexity or geographic
distribution of its components.
In the Maier characterization, emergence is noted as a common characteristic of SoS particularly in SoS composed
of multiple large existing systems, based on the challenge (in time and resources) of subjecting all possible logical
threads across the myriad functions, capabilities, and data of the systems in an SoS. As introduced in the article
Emergence, there are risks associated with unexpected or unintended behavior resulting from combining systems that
have individually complex behavior. These become serious in cases which safety, for example, is threatened through
unintended interactions among the functions provided by multiple constituent systems in a SoS.
ISO/IEC/IEEE 21839 (ISO, 2019) provides a definition of SoS and constituent system:
System of Systems (SoS) — Set of systems or system elements that interact to provide a unique
capability that none of the constituent systems can accomplish on its own. Note: Systems elements can
be necessary to facilitate the interaction of the constituent systems in the system of systems
Constituent Systems — Constituent systems can be part of one or more SoS. Note: Each constituent is
a useful system by itself, having its own development, management goals and resources, but interacts
within the SoS to provide the unique capability of the SoS.
In addition, there are several definitions of system(s) of systems (SoS), some of which are dependent on the
particularity of an application area (Jamshidi, 2005).
It should be noted that formation of a SoS is not necessarily a permanent phenomenon, but rather a matter of
necessity for integrating and networking systems in a coordinated way for specific goals such as robustness, cost,
efficiency, etc.
The US DoD (2008) defines Systems of Systems Engineering as “planning, analyzing, organizing, and integrating
the capabilities of a mix of existing and new systems into an SoS capability greater than the sum of the capabilities
of the constituent parts”.
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 Annex G (2015) also describes the impact of these characteristics on the implementation of
systems engineering processes. Because of the independence of the constituent systems, these processes are in most
cases implemented for engineering both the systems and the system of systems and need to be tailored to support the
characteristics of SoS. These processes are shown in the table below highlighting the fact that these processes are
implemented at both the system and SoS levels, with SoSE often constrained by the systems.
Table 1. Differences Between Systems and Systems of Systems as They Apply to Systems
Engineering.
SE Process Implementation as Applied to SoS
Agreement Because there is often no top level SoS authority, effective agreements among the systems in the SoS are key to successful
processes SoSE.
Organizational SoSE develops and maintains those processes which are critical for the SoS within the constraints of the system level
project enabling processes.
processes
Technical SoSE implements technical management processes applied to the particular considerations of SoS engineering - planning,
management analyzing, organizing, and integrating the capabilities of a mix of existing and new systems into a system-of-systems
processes capability while systems continue to be responsible for technical management of their systems.
Technical processes SoSE technical processes define the cross-cutting SoS capability, through SoS level business/mission analysis and
stakeholder needs and requirements definition. SoS architecture and design frame the planning, organization and integration
of the constituent systems, constrained by system architectures. Development, integration, verification, transition and
validation are implemented by the systems. with SoSE monitoring and review. SoSE integration, verification, transition and
validation applies when constituent systems are integrated into the SoS and performance is verified and validated.
Finally, based on work done by the INCOSE Systems of Systems Work Group (Dahmann, 2014), the major
challenges facing SoSE have been catalogued in terms of seven pain points. These challenges are presented in the
SoSE section of the INCOSE SE Handbook. (INCOSE 2015). These challenges include:
• SoS Authorities. In a SoS each constituent system has its own local ‘owner’ with its stakeholders, users, business
processes and development approach. As a result, the type of organizational structure assumed for most
traditional systems engineering under a single authority responsible for the entire system is absent from most SoS.
In a SoS, SE relies on cross-cutting analysis and on composition and integration of constituent systems which, in
turn, depend on an agreed common purpose and motivation for these systems to work together towards collective
objectives which may or may not coincide with those of the individual constituent systems.
• Leadership. Recognizing that the lack of common authorities and funding pose challenges for SoS, a related
issue is the challenge of leadership in the multiple organizational environment of a SoS. This question of
leadership is experienced where a lack of structured control normally present in SE of systems requires
alternatives to provide coherence and direction, such as influence and incentives.
• Constituent Systems’ Perspectives. Systems of systems are typically comprised, at least in part, of in-service
systems, which were often developed for other purposes and are now being leveraged to meet a new or different
application with new objectives. This is the basis for a major issue facing SoS SE; that is, how to technically
address issues which arise from the fact that the systems identified for the SoS may be limited in the degree to
which they can support the SoS. These limitations may affect the initial efforts at incorporating a system into a
SoS, and systems ‘commitments to other users may mean that they may not be compatible with the SoS over time.
Further, because the systems were developed and operate in different situations, there is a risk that there could be
a mismatch in understanding the services or data provided by one system to the SoS if the particular system’s
context differs from that of the SoS.
• Capabilities and Requirements. Traditionally (and ideally) the SE process begins with a clear, complete set of
user requirements and provides a disciplined approach to develop a system to meet these requirements. Typically,
SoS are comprised of multiple independent systems with their own requirements, working towards broader
capability objectives. In the best case the SoS capability needs are met by the constituent systems as they meet
their own local requirements. However, in many cases the SoS needs may not be consistent with the requirements
for the constituent systems. In these cases, the SoS SE needs to identify alternative approaches to meeting those
needs through changes to the constituent systems or additions of other systems to the SoS. In effect this is asking
the systems to take on new requirements with the SoS acting as the ‘user’.
• Autonomy, Interdependencies and Emergence. The independence of constituent systems in a SoS is the source
of a number of technical issues facing SE of SoS. The fact that a constituent system may continue to change
independently of the SoS, along with interdependencies between that constituent system and other constituent
systems, add to the complexity of the SoS and further challenges SE at the SoS level. In particular, these
dynamics can lead to unanticipated effects at the SoS level leading to unexpected or unpredictable behavior in a
SoS even if the behavior of constituent systems is well understood.
• Testing, Validation, and Learning. The fact that SoS are typically composed of constituent systems which are
independent of the SoS poses challenges in conducting end-to-end SoS testing as is typically done with systems.
Firstly, unless there is a clear understanding of the SoS-level expectations and measures of these expectations, it
can be very difficult to assess level of performance as the basis for determining areas which need attention, or to
assure users of the capabilities and limitations of the SoS. Even when there is a clear understanding of SoS
objectives and metrics, testing in a traditional sense can be difficult. Depending on the SoS context, there may
not be funding or authority for SoS testing. Often the development cycles of the constituent systems are tied to
the needs of their owners and original ongoing user base. With multiple constituent systems subject to
asynchronous development cycles, finding ways to conduct traditional end-to-end testing across the SoS can be
difficult if not impossible. In addition, many SoS are large and diverse making traditional full end-to-end testing
with every change in a constituent system prohibitively costly. Often the only way to get a good measure of SoS
performance is from data collected from actual operations or through estimates based on modeling, simulation
and analysis. Nonetheless the SoS SE team needs to enable continuity of operation and performance of the SoS
despite these challenges.
• SoS Principles. SoS is a relatively new area, with the result that there has been limited attention given to ways to
extend systems thinking to the issues particular to SoS. Work is needed to identify and articulate the cross cutting
principles that apply to SoS in general, and to developing working examples of the application of these principles.
There is a major learning curve for the average systems engineer moving to a SoS environment, and a problem
with SoS knowledge transfer within or across organizations.
Types of SoS
In today’s interconnected world, SoS occur in a broad range of circumstances. In those situations where the SoS is
recognized and treated as a system in its right, an SoS can be described as one of four types (Maier, 1998; Dahmann
and Baldwin, 2008, ISO 21839, 2019):
• Directed - The SoS is created and managed to fulfill specific purposes and the constituent systems are
subordinated to the SoS. The component systems maintain an ability to operate independently; however, their
normal operational mode is subordinated to the central managed purpose;
• Acknowledged - The SoS has recognized objectives, a designated manager, and resources for the SoS; however,
the constituent systems retain their independent ownership, objectives, funding, and development and sustainment
approaches. Changes in the systems are based on cooperative agreements between the SoS and the system;
• Collaborative - The component systems interact more or less voluntarily to fulfill agreed upon central purposes.
The central players collectively decide how to provide or deny service, thereby providing some means of
enforcing and maintaining standards; and
• Virtual - The SoS lacks a central management authority and a centrally agreed upon purpose for the SoS.
Large-scale behavior emerges—and may be desirable—but this type of SoS must rely on relatively invisible
mechanisms to maintain it.
This taxonomy is based on the degree of independence of constituents and it offers a framework for understanding
SoS based on the origin of the SoS objectives and the relationships among the stakeholders for both the SoS and its
constituent systems. In most actual cases, an SoS will reflect a combination of SoS types which may change over
time. This taxonomy is in general use. It is presented in 15288 Annex G and in ISO 21841, "Taxonomy of Systems
of systems". Other taxonomies may focus on nature/type of components, their heterogeneity, etc. (Cook, 2014)
As noted above, many SoS exist in an unrecognized state; this is increasingly true as the levels of interconnectivity
between modern systems keeps increasing. Kemp et al (2013) describe such systems as “accidental” but they can be
described as “discovered” (Dahmann and Henshaw, 2016) because it is only when they become significant for some
reason that we recognize them, at which point they can usually fall into one of the above four categories, since their
significance means they must now operate, with management, in some defined way.
From the SoSE point of view, another potential classification would consider the level of anticipation/preparation of
SoSE with respect to SoS operations and level of stability of the SoS objectives; this is referred to as variability by
Kinder et. al. (2012). This could range from an SoS which responds to a particular trigger and is put immediately in
place when needs are expressed. An example of such an SoS would be a crisis management SoS. This type of SoS is
updated dynamically during the operation. At the other end of the spectrum there are well-specified and stable SoS
developed to answer to specified ongoing needs. An example of such a persistent SoS is an air traffic management
system. This type of SoS is acquired and qualified in a well-defined environment and any need for evolution will
imply a formal SE evolution and re-qualification.
While much of the early attention to SoS has focused on Acknowledged SoS where current SE practices can be
adapted and applied, there is an increasing recognition that the predominance of SoS exist in the collaborative and
virtual types (Honour 2016), and in those areas where SoS may not be officially recognized but affect many of the
broader capabilities in today’s interconnected world. In these cases, the focus is shifting to understanding SoS as
socio-technical, complex adaptive systems rather than extensions of current technical systems with a focus on
understand and addressing the inherent complexity of these types of SoS.
SoSE Application Domains

Application of SoSE is broad and is expanding into almost all walks of life. Originally identified in the defense
environment, SoSE application is now much broader and still expanding. The early work in the defense sector has
provided the initial basis for SoSE, including its intellectual foundation, technical approaches, and practical
experience. In addition, parallel developments in information services and rail have helped to develop SoSE practice
(Kemp and Daw, 2015). Now, SoSE concepts and principles apply across other governmental, civil and commercial
domains.
Some examples include:
• Transportation - air traffic management, the European rail network, integrated ground transportation, cargo
transport, highway management, and space systems,
• Energy - smart grid, smart houses, and integrated production/consumption,
• Health Care - regional facilities management, emergency services, and personal health management,
• Defense - Military missions such as missile defense, networked sensors,
• Rail – Urban, national, international rail systems,
• Natural Resource Management - global environment, regional water resources, forestry, and recreational
resources,
• Disaster Response - responses to disaster events including forest fires, floods, and terrorist attacks,
• Consumer Products - integrated entertainment and household product integration,
• Business- banking and finance,and
• Media - film, radio, and television.
Increased networking and interconnectedness of systems today contributes to growth in the number and domains
where SoS are becoming the norm, particularly with the considerable converge among systems of systems,
cyber-physical systems and the internet of things. (Henshaw, 2016).
Difference between System of Systems Engineering and Systems Engineering

Observations regarding differences between individual or constituent systems and SoS are listed in Table 1. These
differences are not as black and white as the table might suggest and in each case, the degree of difference varies in
practice. Modern systems tend to be highly inter-connected, so that the assumptions that lead to the characteristics of
Systems Engineering in Table 2 are less frequently met.
Table 2. Differences Between Systems and Systems of Systems as They Apply to Systems
Engineering. (INCOSE, 2018)
Systems tend to ... Systems of systems tend to ...
Have a clear set of stakeholders Have multiple levels of stakeholders with mixed and possibly competing
interests
Have clear objectives and purpose Have multiple, and possibly contradictory, objectives and purpose
Have clear operational priorities, with escalation to resolve Have multiple, and sometimes different, operational priorities with no clear
priorities escalation routes
Have a single lifecycle Have multiple lifecycles with elements being implemented asynchronously
Have clear ownership with the ability to move resources between Have multiple owners making independent resourcing decisions
elements
It is the characteristics of management and operational independence (Maier,1998) that most fundamentally
distinguishes the behavior of SoS from unitary systems: this has been explained by Rebovich (2009) as the
fundamental problem for SoS :
From the single-system community’s perspective, its part of the SoS capability represents additional obligations,
constraints and complexities. Rarely is participation in an SoS seen as a net gain from the viewpoint of single-system
stakeholders [Rebovich, 2009].
SoSE Standards
The first standards for system of systems engineering have been adopted by the International Standards
organization. These were initiated in 2016 response to the report of an ISO SoS Standards study group (ISO, 2016)
recognizing the increased attention to SoS and the value to standards to the maturation of SoSE. Three standards
were adopted in 2019 (INCOSE 2020):
• ISO/IEC/IEEE 21839 – System of Systems (SoS) Considerations in Life Cycle Stages of a System
This standard provides a set of critical considerations to be addressed at key points in the life cycle of systems
created by humans and refers to a constituent system that will interact in a system of systems as the system of
interest (SOI). These considerations are aligned with ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 and the ISO/IEC/IEEE 24748 framework
for system life cycle stages and associated terminology.
• ISO/IEC/IEEE 21840 – Guidelines for the utilization of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 in the context of System of
Systems (SoS) Engineering
This standard provides guidance for the utilization of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 in the context of SoS. While
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 applies to systems (including constituent systems), this document provides guidance on
application of these processes to SoS. However, ISO/IEC/IEEE 21840 is not a self-contained SoS replacement for
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288. This document is intended to be used in conjunction with ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288,
ISO/IEC/IEEE 21839 and ISO/IEC/IEEE 21841 and is not intended to be used without them.
• ISO/IEC/IEEE 21841 – Taxonomy of Systems of Systems
The purpose of this standard is to define normalized taxonomies for systems of systems (SoS) to facilitate
communications among stakeholders. It also briefly explains what a taxonomy is and how it applies to the SoS to aid
in understanding and communication.
References
Works Cited
Cook, S. C. and Pratt, J. M., “Towards designing innovative SoSE approaches for the Australian defence force,”
Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Syst. Syst. Eng. Socio-Technical Perspect. SoSE 2014, pp. 295–300, 2014.
Dahmann, J, and M.J.D Henshaw. 2016. “Introduction to Systems of Systems Engineering”, INCOSE INSIGHT,
October 2016, Volume 19, Issue 3, pages 12-16.
Dahmann, Judith. 2015. Systems of Systems Pain Points, INCOSE International Symposium, Seattle, WA.
Dahmann, J., and K. Baldwin. 2008. "Understanding the Current State of US Defense Systems of Systems and the
Implications for Systems Engineering." Presented at IEEE Systems Conference, April 7-10, 2008, Montreal, Canada.
DoD. 2008. Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems. Arlington, VA: US Department of Defense,
Director, Systems and Software Engineering, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology),
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics). Accessed 2 /26/2022. Available:
https://acqnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DoD-Systems-Engineering-Guide-for-Systems-of-Systems-Aug-2008.pdf
Henshaw, M.J.d,, “Systems of Systems. Cyber-Physical Systems, the Internet of Things… Whatever Next?”
INCOSE INSIGHT, October 2016, Volume 19, Issue 3, pages 51-54.
Honour, E.., "Engineering the Virtual or Collaborative SoS", INCOSE INSIGHT, October 2016, Volume 19, Issue 3,
pages 67-69.
INCOSE, 2020. Systems of Systems Standards Quick reference Guide, INCOSE -2020 -sosstandards.
INCOSE, 2018. Systems of Systems Primer, INCOSE-TP-2018-003-01.0.
INCOSE SE Handbook. 2015
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2019. ISO/IEC/IEEE 21839 —Systems and Software
Engineering—System of systems considerations in life cycle stages of a system.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2019. ISO/IEC/IEEE 21840 —Guidelines for the utilization of
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 in the context of system of systems.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2019. ISO/IEC/IEEE 21481 —Systems and Software
Engineering—Taxonomy of systems of systems.
International Standards Organization, 2016. Report of the SC7 SG on Systems of Systems Engineering.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2015. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288—Systems and Software
Engineering—System life cycle processes.
Jamshidi, M. (ed). 2009a. Systems of Systems Engineering – Innovations for the 21st Century. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley.
Jamshidi, Mo. (2005). System-of-Systems Engineering-a Definition.
Kemp, D., et. al.. 2013. Steampunk System of Systems Engineering: A case study of successful System of Systems
engineering in 19th century Britain." Presented at INCOSE International Symposium, June 24–27, 2013,
Philadelphia, PA.
Kinder, A., Barot, V., Henshaw, M., & Siemieniuch, C. (2012). System of Systems: “Defining the system of
interest.” In Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Systems of Systems Eng., Genoa, italy (pp. 463–468). Retrieved from http:/ /
ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6384211
Maier, M.W. 1998. "Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems." Systems Engineering. 1 (4): 267-284.
Rebovich Jr., G. 2009. "Chapter 6: Enterprise System of Systems," in Systems of Systems Engineering - Principles
and Applications. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Primary References
Dahmann, J., and K. Baldwin. 2008. "Understanding the Current State of US Defense Systems of Systems and the
Implications for Systems Engineering." Presented at IEEE Systems Conference, April 7-10, 2008, Montreal, Canada.
DoD. 2008. Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems, version 1.0. Washington, DC, USA: US
Department of Defense (DoD). Available: http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/SE-Guide-for-SoS.pdf.
INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2015
International Standards Organization, 2016. Report of the SC7 SG on Systems of Systems Engineering.
Jamshidi, M. (ed). 2009a. Systems of Systems Engineering – Innovations for the 21st Century. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley.
Barot, V., S. Henson, M. Henshaw, C. Siemieniuch, M. Sinclair, S.L. Lim, M. Jamshidi, and D. DeLaurentis. 2012.
Trans-Atlantic Research and Education Agenda in Systems of Systems (T-AREA-SoS) SOA Report. Longborough,
England, UK: Longborough University. Ref. TAREA-RE-WP2-R-LU-7.
Boardman, J., and B. Sauser. 2006. "System of Systems - the Meaning of Of." IEEE Conference on Systems of
Systems Engineering, April 24-26, 2006, Los Angeles, CA.
Carlock, P., and J.A. Lane. 2006. System of Systems Enterprise Systems Engineering, the Enterprise Architecture
Management Framework, and System of Systems Cost Estimation. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Center for Systems and
Software Engineering (CSSE), University of Southern California (USC). USC-CSE-2006-618.
Dahmann, J., Rebovich, G., Lane, J., Lowry, R. & Baldwin, K. 2011. "An Implementer's View of Systems
Engineering for Systems of Systems." IEEE Systems Conference, April 4-7, 2011, Montreal, Canada. p. 212-217.
Keating C.B., J.J. Padilla, and K. Adams. 2008. "System of systems engineering requirements: Challenges and
guidelines". EMJ - Engineering Management Journal. 20 (4): 24-31.
Luzeaux, D., and J.R. Ruault. 2010. Systems of Systems. London, UK: ISTE.
MITRE. "System of Systems Engineering Collaborators Information Exchange (SoSECIE) Webinar Archive,"
MITRE, 2019. Available: [1]
Neaga, E.I., M.J.d. Henshaw, and Y. Yue. 2009. "The influence of the concept of capability-based management on
the development of the systems engineering discipline." Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Systems
Engineering Research, April 20-23, 2009, Loughborough University, Loughborough, England, UK.
Poza, A.S., S. Kovacic, and C. Keating. 2008. "System of Systems Engineering: An Emerging Multidiscipline".
International Journal of System of Systems Engineering. 1 (1/2).
Ring J. 2002. "Toward an ontology of systems engineering." INSIGHT. 5 (1): 19-22.
Relevant Videos
• Systems of Systems (Somerville) [2]
• System of Systems [3]

References
[1] https:/ / mitre. tahoe. appsembler. com/ blog
[2] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=ryLeFaHarPQ
[3] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=h2br2_twHfw& t=1s
Architecting Approaches for Systems of Systems

Lead Authors: Judith Dahmann, Bud Lawson, Mike Henshaw
A key part of systems engineering (SE) for system of systems (SoS) is the composition of systems to meet SoS
needs. This may include simply interfacing systems and leveraging their existing functionality or it may require
changing the systems functionality, performance or interfaces. These changes occur incrementally, as a SoS evolves
over time to meet changing SoS objectives. System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) supports these changes by
developing and evolving a technical framework that acts as an overlay to the systems of which the SoS is composed.
This framework provides the architecture for the SoS. The SoS architecture defines how the systems work together
to meet SoS objectives and considers the details of the individual systems and their impact the SoS performance or
functionality.
The Role of System of Systems Architecting

An architecture is the structure of components, their relationships, and the principles and guidelines governing their
design evolution over time (IEEE 610.12-1990).
In a SoS, the architecture is the technical framework for the systems comprising the SoS which designates how the
systems will be employed by the users in an operational setting (sometimes called the concept of operations
(CONOPs or CONOPs), the internal and external relationships and dependencies among the constituent systems and
their functions and, finally, the end-to-end functionality and data flow as well as communications among the
systems.
Because SoS largely comprise extant independent systems, these place constraints on the SoS architecture and may
require that migration to a SoS architecture be incremental. Developing a SoS architecture requires consideration of
technical feasibility for the constituent systems as well as the needs of the SoS itself. Architecture data for the
constituent systems can also be important data for architecting the SoS. There is some similarity here to the
introduction of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products into systems: the COTS product has been independently
managed but sufficient data is required by the systems developer to ensure satisfactory integration. However, in this
case the COTS product is not independently operated
Maier (1998) provides a conceptual discussion on the impact of SoS characteristics on SoS architecting.
Additionally, the US DoD SE Guide for SoS (2008) describes practical considerations in developing and evolving a
SoS architecture as a core element of SoSE.
Challenges in Architecting SoS

In the case of a new system development, the systems engineer can begin with a fresh, unencumbered approach to
architecture. However, in a SoS, the systems contributing to the SoS objectives are typically in place when the SoS is
established and the SoS engineer needs to consider the current state and plans of the individual systems as factors in
developing an architecture for the SoS. This, along with the fact that constituent systems may be complex systems in
their own right, leads to a set of challenges to architecting SoS. The approach to architecting must be determined by
the type of SoS under consideration. Whereas a directed SoS can be architected in much the same way as a
monolithic system, the other types are less straightforward, because the SOI may be less clearly defined and because
the SoS architects knowledge of the constituent systems may be partial. Furthermore, whereas in a directed SoS the
owner may have authority and funding to require architectural changes of constituent systems, in acknowledged and
collaborative SoS re-architecting is at the discretion of the owners of the constituent systems. Maier (Maier 1998)
has focused architecting attention on communication for SoS, arguing that this is the common feature of all types,
and he partitions the communication into layers that have a similarity to the layers of interoperability (NCOIC,
2008).
The independence of the constituent systems means that these systems are typically not designed to optimize SoS
objectives. It may even be the case that a constituent system should operate sub-optimally at the system level in
order to achieve overall SoS effectiveness. (Rebovich 2009) has articulated this difficulty as a fundamental problem
of SoS:
From the single-system community's perspective, its part of the SoS capability represents additional
obligations, constraints and complexities. Rarely is participation in an (sic) SoS seen as a net gain from
the viewpoint of single-system stakeholders.
The development and implementation of a SoS architecture may be significantly constrained by a reluctance to make
changes or invest in the constituent systems, which could be very mature (e.g. in sustainment) or currently
productively supporting other uses. In this case, approaches such as gateways and wrapping may be used to
incorporate these systems into the SoS without making significant changes in the other systems.
Architecture Analysis
Large-scale systems integration has grown in importance and correspondingly, there has been a growing interest in
SoS concepts and strategies. The performance and functioning of groups of heterogeneous systems has become the
focus of various applications including military, security, aerospace, distributed energy, healthcare, and disaster
management systems (Lopez 2006; Wojcik and Hoffman 2006). There is an increasing interest in exploiting synergy
between these independent systems to achieve the desired overall system performance (Azarnoush et al. 2006).
Modeling and simulation is conducted to analyze architecture effectiveness and to verify architectural features. In the
literature, researchers have addressed the issues of coordination and interoperability in a SoS (Abel and Sukkarieh
2006; Sahin et al. 2007). In order to study SoS characteristics and parameters, one needs to have realistic simulation
frameworks properly designed for system of systems architecture. There are some attempts to develop simulation
frameworks for multi-agent systems using Discrete Event Simulation (DEVS) tools (Zeigler et al. 2000a). In these
research efforts, the major focus is given to DEVS architecture with JAVA. In (Mittall 2000), DEVS state machine
approach is introduced. Finally, DEVS Modeling Language (DEVSML) is developed by using XML based JAVA in
order to simulate systems in a net-centric way with relative ease. Sahin et al. (2007) have recently introduced a
discrete event XML based SoS simulation framework based on DEVS and JAVA.
The Open Approach to SoS Engineering

As noted above, one of the key challenges with SoS architecting is that the constituent systems of a SoS may not
have been designed, developed and employed with regard to their role in the SoS, which constrains SoS architecture
options. The degree to the architecture which overlays these constituent systems and supports the SoS end-to-end
capabilities can be based on open standards; the SoS may be able to benefit from open architecture for future
evolution.
The critical challenge of moving from SoS, as a concept to the engineering of SoS, is the significant technological,
human, and organizational differences in consideration system of systems engineering and management approaches
(Wells and Sage 2008). A potential approach to engineering a SoS can be the open systems approach to SoSE (Azani
2009). The following open systems principles are listed by Azani (2009):
• Open interface principle - Open systems have permeable boundaries that allow them to exchange mass, energy,
and information with other systems;
• Synergism principle – The notion that designates that the co-operative interaction between constituent systems
has a greater effect in their combined efforts than the sum of their individual parts. Essentially, this is what gives
rise to emergence;
• Self-government principle - This implies that the SoS maintains and develops its internal order without
interference from external sources. This could be through cybernetic control, homeostasis, or self-organization;
• Emergence principle - In this case, this refers to the occurrence of novel and coherent structures, patterns, and
properties during the self-organization of the SoS;
• Conservation principle – This principle states that energy and mass (material) are conserved within the SoS;
• Reconfiguration principle – This refers to the SoS reconfiguring and adapting itself to sustain itself against
changes in its environment;
• Symbiosis principle - The systems within the SoS have a symbiotic relationship to each other; more
transparently, the successful development and sustainment of a SoS depends on symbiotic collaboration between
the stakeholders of the systems of which it is comprised; and
• Modularity principle - This holds that each level and each system is to some extent independent of others. In
SoS design, the development of independent modular systems that interoperate with each other through
standardized interfaces enables greater flexibility to promote better evolution of the SoS.
Azani (2009) elaborates on the open systems development strategies and principles utilized by biotic SoS, discusses
the implications of engineering of man-made SoS, and introduces an integrated SoS development methodology for
the engineering and development of an adaptable, sustainable, and interoperable SoS based on open systems
principles and strategies.
Hitchens (2003, 107), on the other hand, discusses the principles of open systems rather differently in terms of their
systems life cycles, as the seven principles that he addresses are system reactions, system cohesion, system
adaptation, connected variety, limited variety, preferred patterns, and cyclic progression. This description takes a
systems dynamics approach to show how open systems evolve; the description is applicable to natural and
man-made systems.
The enablers of openness include open standards and open specifications, which draw from consensus amongst a
community of interest, and are published by, and freely available within, that community. An open specification
must ensure that its detail-level is allows for it to be implementable by independent parties. Compliance with open
standards is intended to ensure consistent results (Henshaw, et. al., 2011). This parallels the notion of open systems
architecture, which is an open specification of the architecture of a system or system of systems for the purpose of
acquiring specified capabilities. As a general feature of good design (for a system or system of systems), an open
system architecture should allow for the quick and easy improvement and updating of the system capabilities, by
adding or changing components. However, Henshaw et. al. (2011) also denote that open architecture represents a
commercial challenge (rather than a technical one) and that establishing open architecture approaches to acquisition
can be challenging, due to issues involving protection of intellectual property (IP) and commercial advantage.
Networks and Network Analysis

Because networks are such a common component of SoS, they warrant specific attention. In SoS that are based on an
underlying network, communications and information exchange typically constitute a SoS in its own right. This
enabling SoS requires architecting like any other SoS, which will be addressed in this section. In the case of an
enabling network SoS, the ‘user’, the end-to-end functionality of the larger SoS and enabling network SoS is driven
by these user needs. The relationship between SoSE concepts and network enablement, as well as the concepts of
networks and network analysis that extend beyond information sharing, have been explored extensively by the
defense community (Dickerson and Mavris 2009). For instance, during the U.S. Navy’s work on command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) as part of a SoS (Owens 1996),
the term network included organizational aspects of command and control (C2) structure as well as communications.
Differences in the architecting of an enabling network SoS derive from the fact that these SoS are typically built on
commercial technologies and architectures, which are changing rapidly in today’s dynamic technological
environment. In addition, these enabling networks are often shared among SoS and hence may further constrain the
overall SoS architecture. For example, many SoS (for cost and convenience) expect to operate over the internet, and
therefore must consider characteristics of the internet in the expectations for performance and security provided by
use of a shared enabling infrastructure.
Enabling network SoS architecting is particularly well-served by the initial analysis that explores sensitivities
through modeling, simulation, analysis, and/or laboratory experimentation and identifies scalability issues or
divergent behavior (e.g., concerning requirements or usage assumptions, assumed network bandwidth, or others),
beyond which performance starts to break down. This type of analysis provides a basis for network architecture
decisions.
In directed SoS, because of the top-down control, there is the option for creating a specialized network for the
particular SoS. In the other types of SoS, if the constituents are already supported by some type of a network then the
overall SoS networking approach typically needs to accommodate these since the constituent systems are likely to
need to continue to use their current approach to support their original users.
Interoperability
Interoperability within a SoS implies that each system can communicate and interact (control) with any other system
regardless of their hardware and software characteristics or nature. This implies that each constituent member (and
potential new members) of a SoS should be able to communicate with others without compatibility issues in the
operating systems, communication hardware, and so on. For this purpose, a SoS needs a common language the SoS’s
systems can speak. Challenges here are to work towards a common language for exchange of information and data
among systems of a SoS. Examples of such system are XML (eXtensible Markup Language), as one potential
candidate (Jamshidi, 2009a).
However, interoperability must be achieved at many levels and not just at the data/network level. There are a number
of frameworks that describe the levels of interoperability. From military applications, the NCOIC (Network Centric
Operations Industry Consortium) Interoperability Framework (NCOIC 2008) covers three broad levels of
interoperability, subdivided into further layers as indicated below:
• Network Transport:
• Physical Interoperability and
• Connectivity and Network Interoperability;
• Information Services:
• Data/Object Model Interoperability,
• Semantic/Information Interoperability, and

• Knowledge/Awareness of Actions Interoperability; and
• People, Processes and Applications:
• Aligned Procedures,
• Aligned Operations,
• Harmonized Strategy/Doctrine, and
• Political or Business Objectives.
This spectrum of interoperability layers requires appropriate coherence at each layer consistent with the SoS shared
goals.
There exist interoperability frameworks in other fields of activity. An example is the European Interoperability
Framework (European Commission 2004), which focuses on enabling business (particularly e-business)
interoperability and has four levels within a political context:
• Legal Interoperability,
• Organizational Interoperability,
• Semantic Interoperability, and
• Technical Interoperability.
The interoperability between the component systems of a SoS is a fundamental design consideration for SoS that
may be managed through the application of standards.
References
Works Cited
Abel, A., and S. Sukkarieh. 2006. "The Coordination of Multiple Autonomous Systems using Information Theoretic
Political Science Voting Models." Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on System of Systems
Engineering, April 24-26, 2006, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Azani, C. 2009. A Multi-criteria Decision Model for Migrating Legacy System Architectures into Open Systems and
Systems-of-Systems Architectures. Washington, DC, USA: Defense Acquisition University.
Azarnoush, H., B. Horan, P. Sridhar, A.M. Madni, and M. Jamshidi. 2006. "Towards optimization of a real-world
robotic-sensor system of systems". Proceedings of the World Automation Congress (WAC), July 24-26, 2006,
Budapest, Hungary.
Cloutier, R.M., J. DiMario, and H.W. Polzer. 2009. "Net-Centricity and System of Systems," in Systems of Systems
Engineering - Principles and Applications, edited by M. Jamshidi. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Dagli, C.H., and N. Kilicay-Ergin. 2009. "System of Systems Architecting," in Systems of Systems Engineering -
Principles and Applications, edited by M. Jamshidi. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Dickerson, C.E., and D. Mavris. (2009) Architecture and Principles of Systems Engineering. New York, NY, USA:
CRC Press, Auerbach Publications.
DoD. 1998. Levels of Information System Interoperability. Washington, DC, USA: C4IST Interoperability Working
Group, US Department of Defense.
Hall, J. 2007. "Openness – An Important Principle For The Stewardship of DoD IT Standards." DSPO Journal, 4-7.
Available: http://www.dsp.dla.mil/app_uil/content/newsletters/journal/DSPJ-01-07.pdf.
Henshaw, M. (ed.). 2011. Assessment of open architectures within defence procurement issue 1: systems of systems
approach community forum working group 1 - open systems and architectures. London, UK: SoSA Community
Forum Working Group 1 (Crown owned copyright). Available: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/8828.
Hitchins, D.K. 2003. Advanced Systems Thinking, Engineering and Management. Norwood, MA, USA: Artech
House, Inc.
IEEE. 1990. IEEE 610.12-1990, Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. Washington, DC, USA:
Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Jamshidi, M. (ed.) 2009. Systems of Systems Engineering - Principles and Applications. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Press.
Johnson M. 2009. "System of Systems Standards," in System of Systems Engineering - Innovations for the 21st
Century. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Lopez D. 2006. "Lessons Learned From the Front Lines of the Aerospace." Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on System of Systems Engineering, April 24-26, 2006, Los Angeles, CA, US.
Mittal, S. 2000. "DEVS Unified Process for Integrated Development and Testing of Service Oriented Architectures."
PhD Dissertation. Tucson, AZ, USA: University of Arizona.
NCOIC. 2008. "NCOIC Interoperability Framework (NIF(R))." Available: http:/ / www. ncoic. org/ technology/
technical-products/frameworks/10-technology/33-tech-prod-framework-nif.
Owens, W.A. 1996. The Emerging U.S. System-of-Systems. Washington, DC, USA: The National Defense
University, Institute of National Security Studies.
Rebovich Jr., G. 2009. "Chapter 6: Enterprise System of Systems," in Systems of Systems Engineering - Principles
and Applications. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press. p. 169.
Sahin, F., M. Jamshidi, and P. Sridhar. 2007. "A Discrete Event XML based Simulation Framework for System of
Systems Architectures." Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on System of Systems, April 16-18,
2007, San Antonio, TX, USA.
US Department of Defense. 2008. Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems, version 1.0. Washington, DC,
USA: US Department of Defense.
Wells, G.D., and A.P. Sage. 2008. "Engineering of a System of Systems," in Systems of Systems Engineering -
Principles and Applications. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Wojcik, L.A., and K.C. Hoffman. 2006. "Systems of Systems Engineering in the Enterprise Context: A Unifying
Framework for Dynamics." Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on System of Systems Engineering,
April 24-26, 2006, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Zachmann, J. 1987. "A framework for information systems architecture." IBM Systems Journal. 26 (3).
Zeigler, B.P., T.G. Kim, and H. Praehofer. 2000. Theory of Modeling and Simulation. New York, NY, USA:
Academic Press.
Primary References
Chen, D., G. Doumeingts, F. Vernadat. 2008. "Architectures for Enterprise Integration and Interoperability: Past,
Present and Future." Comput.Ind. 59 (7):647-659.
Dickerson, C.E., S.M. Soules, M.R. Sabins, and P.H. Charles. 2004. Using Architectures for Research, Development,
and Acquisition. Washington, DC, USA: Office of the Assistant Secretary of The Navy (Research Development And
Acquisition). ADA427961. Available: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA427961.
European Commission. 2010. "Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Region," in Towards interoperability
for European public services. Available: http://ec.eupora.eu/isa/strategy/doc/annex_ii_eif_en.pdf
Giachetti, R.E. 2010. Design of Enterprise Systems, Theory, Architecture, and Methods. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Press.
Rhodes, D.H., A.M. Ross, and D.J. Nightingale. 2010. "Architecting the System of Systems Enterprise: Enabling
Constructs and Methods from the Field of Engineering Systems." IEEE International Systems Conference, March
23-26, 2009, Vancouver, Canada.
MITRE. 2012. "Architectures Federation," in Systems Engineering Guide. Bedford, MA, USA: MITRE Corporation.
Accessed September 11, 2012. Available: http:/ / www. mitre. org/ work/ systems_engineering/ guide/
enterprise_engineering/engineering_info_intensive_enterprises/architectures_federation.html.
Mittal, S. 2000. "Extending DoDAF to Allow DEVS-Based Modeling and Simulation." Journal of Defense Modeling
and Simulation (JDMS). 3 (2).
Valerdi R., E. Axelband, T. Baehren, B. Boehm, and D. Dorenbos. 2008. "A research agenda for systems of systems
architecting." International Journal of System of Systems Engineering. 1 (1-2): 171-188.
Zeigler, B.P., D. Fulton, P. Hammonds, and J. Nutaro. 2000. "Framework for M&S–Based System Development and
Testing in a Net-Centric Environment." ITEA Journal of Test and Evaluation. 26 (3): 21-34.

Socio-Technical Features of Systems of Systems

Lead Authors: Judith Dahmann, Mike Henshaw, Bud Lawson, Contributing Authors: Heidi Davidz, Alan
Faisandier
In perhaps the earliest reference to Systems of Systems (SoS), Ackoff (1971) describes a concept that is mostly
concerned with organizations, i.e. social. However, this section is concerned with the socio-technical aspects of
technical SoS, which are composed of interdependent resources, such as, people, processes, information, and
technology that interact with each other and with their environment in support of a common mission (glossary).
The Socio-Technical Nature of Systems of Systems

Rebovich (2009) [ has captured the essence of the SoS problem as:
“From a single-system community’s perspective, its part of the SoS capability represents additional obligations,
constraints and complexities. Rarely is participation in an (sic) SoS seen as a net gain from the viewpoint of
single-system stakeholders.”
Three of the persistent SoS challenges, or pain points, identified by Dahmann (2015) are directly related to this
problem of stakeholder perspective and the local optimization of constituent system performance at the expense, or
to the detriment of, the overall SoS performance. These are: SoS Authority, Leadership, and Autonomy,
Interdependencies & Emergence. Thus, the sociological aspects affecting decision making and human behaviors
must be given similar weight to the technical aspects of SoS.
Turning to views outside of Systems Engineering, Ergonomists regard socio-technical systems as having the
following characteristics (Maguire, 2014):
• There are collective operational tasks,
• They contain social and technical sub-systems,
• They are open systems (i.e. strongly interacting with their environments), and
• The concept of the system being an unfinished system.
These are also characteristics of Systems of Systems. Klein (2014) has noted that approaches to socio-technical
systems can take the two perspectives of “system affects people” or “people affect system”, depending upon how the
system boundary is drawn. It is generally true for systems that consideration of their context requires socio-technical
aspects to be taken into account.
Although focused largely on IT systems, Baxter and Sommerville (2011) have noted that the introduction of new
business SoS are generally carried out in conjunction with a change process. They argue that frequently the social
and organizational aspects are disruptive and that inadequate attention is paid to the connection between change
processes and systems development processes. They propose two types of Socio-Technical Systems Engineering
activities:
• Sensitizing and awareness activities, designed to sensitize stakeholders to the concerns of other stakeholders.
• Constructive engagement activities, which are largely concerned with deriving requirements accurately and
meaningfully.
The extent to which these activities can be effective may be challenged by independent management or operation of
constituent systems in a SoS.
Although there are many matters concerning the socio-technical aspects of SoS, there are two important issues, that
are dealt with her. The first is the need for appropriate governance structures, given that operational and/or
managerial independence affects top-down direction of the SoS and may compromise achievement of the SoS
goal(s). The second issue is a lack of situational awareness of managers, operators, or other stakeholders of the SoS,
so that they may not understand the impact of their local decisions on the wider SoS.
SoS Governance
Generally, design and operation of complex systems is concerned with control, but the classification of SoS
(Dahmann, et. al., 2008) is based on the notion of diminishing central control, as the types go from directed to
virtual. Sauser, et. al. (2009) has described the ‘control paradox of SoS’ and asserted that for SoS, ‘management’ is
replaced by ‘governance’. ‘Control is a function of rules, time, and bandwidth; whereas command is a function of
trusts, influence, fidelity, and agility’.
Some practitioners have found the Cynefin framework, developed by David Snowden, helpful in understanding the
nature of complexity that may arise in SoS. Developed from knowledge management considerations, Kurtz and
Snowden (2003) propose three reasons why the behavior of systems involving people may be difficult to predict.
Firstly, humans are not limited to one identity, and so modelling human behaviors using norms may not be reliable.
Secondly, humans are not limited to acting in accordance with predetermined rules. Thirdly, humans are not limited
to acting on local patterns. These reasons all undermine control, so that the sociological aspects of SoS make their
behaviours hard to predict and, possibly indeterminate. The Cynefin framework considers systems to be classified in
four domains:
• Known – simple systems with predictable and repeatable cause and effect
• Knowable – amenable to systems thinking and analytical/reductionist methods
• Complex – adaptive systems where cause and effect are only discernable in retrospect and do not repeat
• Chaotic – no cause and effect relationships are perceivable
The different types of SoS (directed, acknowledged, collaborative, and virtual) could all be described in any of the
above domains, depending on many factors internal to the SoS, but in all cases it is the sociological element of the
socio-technical SoS that is most likely to give rise to ambiguity in predicting behavior.
A major governance issue for SoS is understanding the ownership of, and making reliable estimates of risk (Fovino
& Masera, 2007). High levels of connectivity, and the potential for emergent behavior due to the interactions of
separately owned/operated constituent systems, means that significant risks may go unacknowledged and their
mitigations unplanned.
In general, governance can be summed up by asking three connected questions (Siemieniuch and Sinclair, 2014):
• Are we doing the right things (leadership)?
• Are we doing those things right (management)?
• How do we know this (metrics and measurements)?
Currently, there is no accepted framework for addressing these questions in a SoS context, but Henshaw et. al.
(2013) highlighted architectures as an important means through which governance may be clarified. They postulate
that a SoS can be regarded as a set of trust and contract relationships between systems (i.e. including both informal
and formal relationships). The systems architect of a constituent system must, therefore, address trust issues for each
participating organization in the overall enterprise with which his/her system must interoperate. For SoS, technical
engineering governance is concerned with defining and ensuring compliance with trust at the interface between
constituent systems. An example of difficulty managing the interfaces in a SoS is provided in the Cassini-Huygens
mission case study .
Situational Awareness
Situational awareness is a decision maker’s understanding of the environment in which he/she takes a decision; it
concerns information, awareness, perception, and cognition. Endsley (1995) emphasizes that situational awareness is
a state of knowledge. There are numerous examples of SoS failure due to the operator of one constituent system
making decisions based on inadequate knowledge of the overall SoS (big picture).
On the other hand, SoS development is also viewed as the means through which improved situational awareness may
be achieved (Van der Laar, et. al., 2013). In the defense environment, Network Enabled Capability (NEC) was a
system of systems approach motivated by the objective of making better use of information sharing to achieve
military objectives. NEC was predicated on the ability to share useful information effectively among the
stakeholders that need it. It is concluded that improving situational awareness will improve SoS performance, or at
least reduce the risk of failures at the SoS level. Thus, the principles which govern the organization of the SoS
should support sharing information effectively across the network; in essence, ensuring that every level of the
interoperability spectrum is adequately serviced. Operators need insight into the effect that their own local decisions
may have on the changing SoS or environment; similarly they need to understand how external changes will affect
the systems that they own.
Increasingly, SoS include constituent systems with high levels of autonomous decision making ability, a class of
system that can be described as cyber-physical systems (of systems). The relationship to SoS is described by
Henshaw (2016). Issues arise because autonomy can degrade human situational awareness regarding the behavior of
the SoS, and also the autonomous systems within the SoS have inadequate situational awareness due to a lack of
competent models of humans (Sowe, 2016)
References
Works Cited
Ackoff, R.L.(1971) “Towards a Systems of Systems Concepts,” Manage. Sci., vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 661–671.
Baxter, G. and I. Sommerville, (2011) “Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering,”
Interact. Comput., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 4–17.
Dahmann, J. S. & Baldwin, K. J. (2008) Understanding the Current State of US Defense Systems of Systems and the
Implications for Systems Engineering, 2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, 1–7. http:/ / doi. org/ 10. 1109/
SYSTEMS.2008.4518994
Dahmann, J.S. (2015) “Systems of Systems Characterization and Types,” in Systems of Systems Engineering for
NATO Defence Applications (STO-EN-SCI-276), pp. 1–14.]
Endsley, M. R. (1995) Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems, J. Human Factors and
Ergonomics Soc., 37(1), 32–64. http://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543
Fovino, I. N., & Masera, M. (2007) Emergent disservices in interdependent systems and system-of-systems, in Proc.
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 1, pp. 590–595. http:/ / doi. org/ 10. 1109/
ICSMC.2006.384449
Henshaw, M. J. de C., Siemieniuch, C. E., & Sinclair, M. A. (2013) Technical and Engineering Governance in the
Context of Systems of Systems, in NATO SCI Symp. Architecture Assessment for NEC (pp. 1–10). Tallinn, Es.
NATO STO.
Henshaw, M. (2014) A Socio-Technical Perspective on SoSE, in Lecture Series in Systems of Systems Engineering
for NATO Defence Applications (SCI-276). NATO CSO.
Henshaw, M. (2016). Systems of Systems, Cyber-Physical Systems, The Internet-of-Things…Whatever Next?
INSIGHT, 19(3), pp.51–54.
Klein, L. (2014) What do we actually mean by ‘sociotechnical’? On values, boundaries and the problems of
language, Appl. Ergon., vol. 45, no. 2 PA, pp. 137–142.
Kurtz, C.F. and D. J. Snowden (2003) “The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-making in a Complex-Complicated
World,” IBM Syst. J., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 462–483.
Maguire, M. (2014) Socio-technical systems and interaction design - 21st century relevance, Appl. Ergon., vol. 45,
no. 2 PA, pp. 162–170.:/mil/ [1]
Rebovich, G. (2009) “Enterprise systems of Systems,” in Systems of Systems Engineering - Principles and
Applications, M. Jamshidi, Ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 165–191.
Sauser, B., Boardman, J., & Gorod, A. (2009) System of Systems Management, in System of Systems Engineering:
Innovations for the 21st Century, M. Jamshidi (Ed.), (pp. 191–217) Wiley.
Siemieniuch, C.E. & Sinclair, M.A. (2014) Extending systems ergonomics thinking to accommodate the
socio-technical issues of Systems of Systems, Appl. Ergon., V 45, Issue 1, Pages 85-98
Sowe, S.K. et al. (2016) Cyber-Physical-Human Systems - putting people in the loop. IT Professional, 18(February),
pp.10–13.]
Van der Laar, P., Tretmans, J., & Borth, M. (2013) Situational Awareness with Systems of Systems. Springer.
Primary References
Checkland, P.B. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, West Sussex, England, UK: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Bruesburg, A., and G. Fletcher. 2009. The Human View Handbook for MODAF, draft version 2, second issue.
Bristol, England, UK: Systems Engineering & Assessment Ltd. Available: http:/ / www. hfidtc. com/ research/
process/reports/phase-2/hv-handbook-issue2-draft.pdf.
IFIP-IFAC Task Force. 1999. "The Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology," V1.6.3.
Available: http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~bernus/taskforce/geram/versions/geram1-6-3/v1.6.3.html.
ISO. 1998. ISO 14258:1998, Industrial automation systems — Concepts and rules for enterprise models. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2006. ISO 19439:2006, Enterprise integration — Framework for enterprise modelling. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2007. ISO 19440:2007, Enterprise integration — Constructs for enterprise modelling. Geneva, Switzerland:
Miller, F.P., A.F. Vandome, and J. McBrewster. 2009. Enterprise Modelling. Mauritius: Alphascript Publishing,
VDM Verlag Dr. Müller GmbH & Co. KG.

References
[1] http:/ / www. dtic. mil/ dtic/ tr/ fulltext/ u2/ a468785. pdf
Capability Engineering
Lead Authors: Judith Dahmann, Bud Lawson, Mike Henshaw
Capability is increasingly being used to describe the Systems Engineering of Operational Capabilities. The INCOSE
UK Capability System Engineering Guide (Kemp and Daw) built on this analysis and describes:
• That Capabilities are realised through a combination of people, processes, information as well as equipment;
• They are concerned with delivering outcomes, rather than outputs;
• They are enduring, with capabilities being upgraded rather than replaced;The term emerged in defence in the
early 2000, however the concepts go back far earlier (Checkland, 1997).
• The concepts of Capability Systems Engineering have been used in Rail (Dogan, 2012) and Healthcare (Royal
Academy of Engineering, 2017).
is widely used across many industrial sectors and has begun to take on various specific meanings across, and even
within, those sectors. Terms such as capability-based acquisition, capability engineering and management, life
capability management, capability sponsor, etc. are now ubiquitous in defense and elsewhere. Henshaw et al. (2011)
have identified at least eight worldviews of capability and capability engineering and concluded that the task of
capability engineering is not consistently defined across the different communities.
The aim of capability systems engineering is to ensure that the upgraded capability meets stakeholders needs. Good
Capability Systems Engineering provides a clear line of sight from the purpose of the capability, through the
operational concept and whole system design down to specific requirements and interfaces (Figure 1)
[Add Figure]
Capability engineering is concerned with the whole lifecycle (Figure 2); the “Fuzzy front end” of capability
trade-offs, the conventional ‘V’ product lifecycle, and the “Messy in-service” support phase.
[Add figure]
Capability Systems Engineering uses standard SE tools, applied from the perspective of the asset owner-operators
(i.e. the military user or rail transportation provider).
Kemp and Daw (2014) note several differences between Capability Systems Engineering and the more traditional
product Systems Engineering:
• Using persuasion and influence as much as command and control to implement decisions
• Building in flexibility where possible, as the capability will change.
• Implementing the transition to the improved capability as both an engineering and cultural change.
• Recognising that capabilities are often Complex Adaptive Systems. As the capability improves, users or
competitors change their behaviour, reducing the effectiveness of the capability
• Capability trade-offs are not about simple comparisons, between similar things – often they are choices between
new equipment, better training or new processes.
There is a strong relationship between Capability Engineering and system of systems (SoS).. To some a Capability is
a type of system/SoS, to others it is what the system/SoS does. This is explored in Henshaw et al. (2011), who
describe at least eight worldviews of capability and capability engineering
Services View of SoSE

As it has been discussed throughout the Systems of Systems (SoS) knowledge area, a ‘system of systems’ is typically
approached from the viewpoint of bringing together multiple systems to provide broader capability. As is discussed
in Architecting Approaches for Systems of Systems, the networking of the constituent systems in a SoS is often a
key part of an SoS. In some circumstances, the entire content of a SoS is information and the SoS brings together
multiple information systems to support the information needs of a broader community. These ‘information
technology
information technology
information technology
information technology (IT)-based’ SoSs have the same set of characteristics of other SoSs and face many of the
same challenges. Currently, IT has adopted a ‘services’ view of this type of SoS and increasingly applies a
International Organization for Standaradization (ISO) 20000 series (Information technology -- Service management)
or Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) v. 3 (OGC 2009) based approach to the design and
management of information-based SoS. A service perspective simplifies SoSE as it:
• is a more natural way for users to interact with and understand a SoS,
• allows designers to design specific services to meet defined performance and effectiveness targets, and
• enables specific service levels to be tested and monitored through life.
Although it has not been proven to be universally applicable, the services view works well in both IT and
transportation SoS.
References
Works Cited
Engineering - An Analysis of Perspectives." Presented at International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
21st International Symposium, June 20-23, 2011, Denver, CO, USA.
Checkland P. and Holwell, S, 1997, Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field
Dogan, H., Henshaw, M. and Johnson, J., 2012. An incremental hybridisation of heterogeneous case studies to
develop an ontology for Capability Engineering. In: INCOSE, ed. The 22nd Annual INCOSE International
Symposium 9-12 July 2012 Rome, Italy.
Royal Academy of Engineering, 2017, Engineering better care a systems approach to health and care design and
continuous improvement
Erl, T. 2008. SOA Principles of Service Design. Boston, MA, USA: Prentice Hall Pearson Education.
Hitchins, D.K. 2003. Advanced Systems Thinking, Engineering and Management. Norwood, MA, USA: Artech
House, Inc.
Stationery Office.
Primary References
Engineering - An Analysis of Perspectives." Presented at International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
21st International Symposium, June 20-23, 2011, Denver, CO, USA.
Kemp D., Daw A. 2014, INCOSE UK Capability Systems Engineering Guide
Davies, J.K. 2011. Survey of Background Literature for Capability Engineering. INCOSE UK Capability Working
Group Report.

Mission Engineering
Lead Author: Ron Giachetti, Contributing Author: Andy Hernandez.
This article describes the emerging concept of mission engineering, especially as it is being practiced by the US
Department of Defense. Mission engineering is closely associated with systems of systems (SoS) because most
missions are accomplished through the coordination and interoperability of multiple systems. The article defines
mission engineering and describes the systems engineering activities involved in mission engineering.
Definition of Mission Engineering

Mission engineering describes the application of systems engineering to the planning, analysis, and designing of
missions, where the mission is the system of interest. Mission engineering analyzes the mission goals and thread,
analyzes the available as well as emerging operational and system capabilities, and designs a mission architecture to
achieve the mission goal (Gold, 2016). Consequently, mission engineering must simultaneously consider
operational, technical, and acquisition issues and their integration in order to design a solution to achieve the mission
goal (Van Bossuyt et al. 2019). Lastly, the term “mission” is generally used in the military context, and most mission
engineering is for military systems. However, the term, and the process and knowledge it describes, could be applied
to space missions or other mission areas.
Missions are almost always conducted by multiple systems coordinating their actions and sharing data. We call these
mission-oriented system-of-systems (SoS). Ideally the mission-oriented SoS could be rapidly conceived, assembled,
and deployed by operational commanders to react to immediate threats.
Definitions and Principles

A mission describes what the system will do and the purpose of doing it. The mission statement describes Kipling’s
“six honest serving-men” – who, what, when, where, why, and sometimes how (Kipling 1902). The mission provides
the context for defining measures of effectiveness and for development of the Concept of Operations (CONOPS).
The mission is accomplished by operational nodes completing one or more operational activities. An operational
node can be an organization, individual, or system. Operational activities are actions that either transform one or
more inputs into outputs or change the state of the system. A system provides capabilities through the execution of
operational activities.
Mission Engineering Activities

The following are the main activities of mission engineering:
Mission Capability Analysis and Definition – The engineer analyzes the problem scenario to determine what
capabilities are required and to develop a CONOPS for the mission.
Mission Thread Definition – The engineer analyzes the end-to-end set of operational activities. The starting point is
modeling the operational activities, their sequencing, and the information flows between them. For military systems,
the mission thread is often a kill chain describing the sequence of activities from searching for a threat to engaging a
threat.
Tradeoff Analysis – The engineer develops alternatives for accomplishing the mission and conducts trade studies to
determine the best alternative given resources and time available.
Mission Architecting – The engineer develops an operational architecture describing the capabilities, the
operational activities, operational nodes, and other relevant elements to model the mission.
Requirements Engineering – The engineer determines the functional and non-functional requirements from the
capability analysis, CONOPS, and mission threads. The engineer allocates the requirements to the operational nodes.
In many cases, the systems in the operational nodes might require engineering to fulfill the requirements.
Interoperability Analysis – The interoperability between systems completing the mission must occur at both the
operational and technical levels (Giachetti et al. 2019). Operational interoperability describes the ability of the
systems to coordinate their activities to support completion of the mission thread. Technical interoperability
describes the ability of the systems to exchange data with considerations for the timeliness and quality of the data.
The interoperability analysis generates additional requirements on the systems.
Mission-Oriented SoS Implementation – The mission-oriented SoS must be implemented through designing and
developing new systems, modifying existing systems, and/or modifying doctrine, policies, procedures, and other
non-materiel means to help achieve the mission.
Mission Verification and Validation – The engineer verifies that the system as delivered satisfies the requirements
and validates that the system fulfills the mission purpose and stakeholder needs.
References
Works Cited
Beam, D.F. 2015. Systems engineering and integration as a foundation for mission engineering. Monterey, CA,
USA: Naval Postgraduate School.
Beery, P., E. Paulo. 2019. "Application of Model-Based Systems Engineering Concepts to Support Mission
Engineering." IEEE Systems. 7(3): 44.
Dahmann, J. Keynote Address: “Mission engineering: System of systems engineering in context.” Proceedings of the
IEEE System of Systems Engineering Conference, 19–22 May 2019, Anchorage, AK, USA.
Giachetti, R., S. Wangert, R. Eldred. 2019. "Interoperability analysis method for mission-oriented system of systems
engineering". Proceedings of IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), Orlando, FL, USA, 8-11 April 2019,
pp. 1-6.
Gold, R. 2016. "Mission engineering." Proceedings of the 19th Annual National Defense Industrial Association
(NDIA) Systems Engineering Conference, Springfield, VA, USA, 24-27 October 2016.
Hutchison, N.A.C., S. Luna, W.D. Miller, H.Y. See Tao, D. Verma, G. Vesonder, and J. Wade. 2018. "Mission
engineering competencies." Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual
Conference and Exposition, vol. 2018.
Kipling, R. “The Elephant’s Child, Just So Stories”. 1902.
Van Bossuyt, D.L., P. Beery, B.M. O’Halloran, A. Hernandez, E. Paulo. 2019. "The Naval Postgraduate School’s
Department of Systems Engineering approach to mission engineering education through capstone projects." IEEE
Systems 7(3): 38.
Primary References
Gold, R. 2016. "Mission engineering." Proceedings of the 19th Annual National Defense Industrial Association
(NDIA) Systems Engineering Conference, Springfield, VA, USA, 24-27 October 2016.
Hutchison, N.A.C., S. Luna, W.D. Miller, H.Y. See Tao, D. Verma, G. Vesonder, and J. Wade. 2018. "Mission
engineering competencies." Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual
Conference and Exposition, vol. 2018.
Van Bossuyt, D.L., P. Beery, B.M. O’Halloran, A. Hernandez, E. Paulo. 2019. "The Naval Postgraduate School’s
Department of Systems Engineering approach to mission engineering education through capstone projects." IEEE
Systems 7(3): 38.
None.

739
Knowledge Area: Healthcare Systems

Engineering
Healthcare Systems Engineering

This article provides an overview of the role of systems engineering in the engineering or re-engineering of
healthcare systems to meet a number of modern day challenges. The role of SE in medical devices, healthcare IT,
pharmaceuticals, and public health systems are considered and contrasted to "traditional" SE practices discussed
elsewhere in the SEBoK. See Overview of the Healthcare Sector for details of the stakeholders and constraints of the
these different parts of the sector.
Topics
• Overview of the Healthcare Sector
• Systems Engineering in Healthcare Delivery
• Systems Biology
• Lean in Healthcare
Healthcare and Systems Engineering

Healthcare today faces many challenges related to safety (e.g. Hospital Safety Score 2013, Andel et al. 2012,
Institute of Medicine 1999), affordability, access, and the means for reliably producing positive outcomes for all
patients of all ages and across all care environments. Furthermore, the health of individuals is challenged by many
threats such as environmental and behavioral norms, emerging natural infectious diseases, and acute and chronic
conditions that are becoming more prevalent because of longer lifespans. Re-engineering today’s healthcare to
address these challenges requires a systems approach – an approach that develops solutions to contend with the
complexity of healthcare-related policy, economics, social dynamics, and technology. Systems Engineers are trained
to grapple with this kind of complexity by thinking holistically and to work with trans-disciplinary teams to develop
solutions making re-engineering healthcare a natural fit for systems engineers and the tools of systems engineering.
The disciplines involved in re-engineering healthcare are far reaching across academia, government, industry,
private, and public sectors including the patients and families the healthcare field serves. Systems Engineers
involved in this re-engineering draw on several tools when working with these stakeholders to develop solutions. In
doing so they follow the general systems principles described in the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered
Systems knowledge area in SEBoK Part 2. First, with so many diverse stakeholders involved in this field, it is vitally
important for the Systems Engineer to help clarify the problem or opportunity and to conceive of the objective of the
re-engineering. They need to “envision the solution” without being entirely prescriptive of the solution’s specific
implementation, see Identifying and Understanding Problems and Opportunities. Then, drawing from best practices,
the Systems Engineer guides the stakeholders through the synthesis of possible solutions and the analysis and
selection between alternatives. Systems engineers are also involved in the implementation and testing and the
deployment, use and sustainment of healthcare systems to provide stakeholder value. The systems approach in
healthcare must be particularly mindful to not exclusively focused on technical aspects of the effort since the
solutions to healthcare’s challenges exist not only in technical areas but the integration of culture, workflow and
processes, with technology as a tool to support the delivery of safe, affordable, and accessible care.
To achieve this system approach healthcare projects follow a version of the SE life cycle described in SEBoK Part 3.
This included the creation of Stakeholder and System Requirements, Systems Architecture and Design and System
Integration, Verification and Validation. The SE life cycle extends to include System Deployment, Operation,
Maintenance and Logistics. Healthcare project will also follow some of the Systems Engineering Management
processes described in Part 3.
It is vitally important for the healthcare systems engineer to ensure socio-technical integration and interoperability
among system components are part of any project – the last thing healthcare needs is another standalone innovation
that perpetuates the silos that exist in the field today. Remaining focused on the objective and problem to solve,
managing scope creep, disciplined design, implementation, and project management are key activities the Systems
Engineer is responsible for in healthcare systems engineering.
Systems Engineering for Medical Device Development

Systems Engineering for medical device development is essentially an application of Product Systems Engineering
as described in SEBoK Part 4 with a few customizations:
• The life cycle has to comply with specific healthcare regulations, which constrain aspects of the life cycle, as
exemplified by FDA regulations in the US (21CFR 820.30)
• The products are market driven, with little customization allowed by the manufacturer at the customer site
• The markets are midsized, with the market for a given technology or product line often being in the $1-10B range
• Medical device development programs are mid-sized…many from 10-100 man-years of development, lasting 1-2
years
• Time to market is critical, with the first mover or first with a complete solution capturing the majority of the
profits
• Most products are cyber-physical, with software becoming a larger part of the product. Many products include
significant aspects of physiology or chemistry
• There is a special tension between “efficacy” and “safety”. Efficacy requires the vast majority to be helped. Safety
is compromised if only a very small minority is adversely affected. Truly safe systems require a special approach
to systems engineering . (Leveson 2011)
• Customer feedback may be constrained by safety issues as well as HIPAA regulations
Device Development in a Market Environment

One critical difference between many “traditional” systems engineering industries (defense and aerospace) and
healthcare device development is that most healthcare device development is market driven, rather than contract
driven. Some key differences between market and contract systems engineering:
• The program size (budget) and dates are not ‘fixed’, they are set by the business leadership designed to maximize
return on investment across a portfolio of product programs
• Program scope and requirements are not fixed externally; they can be changed fairly rapidly by negotiation
between functions and the executive committee.
• The goal for the product development isn’t necessarily a feature set, it is a market share and price premium
relative to the competition…which can be a moving target. A competitive announcement will often force a
change in the program scope
• In a contract based program there is an identified customer, with a set of applications and workflows. In a market
driven program the workflow and use cases are defined by the developer, and the buyer needs to ‘own’ the
integration of the offering into their specific systems and workflows.
• For specific medical products the FDA can require pre-market trials and post market studies . (FDA 2014)
• The different types of healthcare reimbursement across the world (universal coverage private insurance, national
single provider, national single payer, private insurance, and out of pocket) creates dramatically different market
dynamics (for individuals, healthcare providers, and product developers) . (Reid 2010)
Regulations for Medical Device Development

As with all regulated products, there are many regulations governing the development of medical devices. The
medical device industry specific regulations are primarily driven by the US (FDA), Europe (European Commission),
and Canada (Health Canada). Within the US, the FDA governs medical devices primarily through 21 CFR 820.30
(Quality Systems Regulation, Subpart C Design Controls) , which contains requirements similar to ISO 13485. The
sections of the Quality Systems Regulation for Design Controls can be mapped fairly directly to ISO/IEC/IEEE
15288 (2015) and the INCOSE SE Handbook (INCOSE 2015).
Table 1. Comparison of Healthcare Safety Regulations with ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 and the INCOSE SE Handbook.
21CFR820.30 ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015 INCOSE SE Handbook
(b) Design and 6.3.1 Project Planning Process 5.1 Project Planning Process
development planning
(c) Design input. 6.4.2 Stakeholder needs and requirements definition process 4.2 Stakeholder needs and requirements definition process
6.4.3 Systems requirements definition process 4.3 Systems requirements definition process
(d) Design output 6.4.5 Design definition process 6.4.7 Implementation 4.5 Design definition process 4.7 Implementation process
process
(e) Design review 6.3.2 Project Assessment and Control process 5.2 Project Assessment and Control process
(f) Design verification 6.4.9 Verification Process 4.9 Verification Process
(g) Design validation 6.4.11 Validation Process 4.11 Validation Process
(h) Design transfer 6.4.10 Transition Process 4.10 Transition Process
(i) Design changes 6.3.5 Configuration Management Process 6.4.13 5.5 Configuration Management Process 4.13 Maintenance
Maintenance Process Process
(j) Design history file 6.2.6 Knowledge Management Process 5.6 Information Management Process
In the biomedical and healthcare environment, an important differentiator in Risk Management activities compared
to other industries (see Risk Management) is that the users and patients are the center of risk analysis rather than
technical or business risks. Risk management is an important element of the design control process, as preliminary
hazard analysis drive initial design inputs. Traceability between identified risks, risk mitigations, design inputs, and
design outputs is a key factor in product clearance through regulatory agencies. Most regulatory bodies have
recognized ISO 14971: Medical devices -- Application of risk management to medical devices as a methodology for
assessing and documenting product safety and effectiveness.
Usability Engineering is an important subset of risk management activities. ISO 62366-1 Medical devices – Part 1:
Application of usability engineering to medical devices provides a “process for a manufacturer to analyze, specify,
develop and evaluate the usability of a medical device as it relates to safety. This usability engineering (human
factors engineering) process permits the manufacturer to assess and mitigate risks associated with correct use and use
errors, i.e., normal use.“ . (IEC 62366-2015) For example, for a device designed for home care use, there are many
complex interfaces that product designers must consider. Patients may be physically or cognitively affected (age,
medication, injury, etc.); they may be untrained or cared for people who are untrained; they are not professionals
used to technical systems, etc. Even in the hospital setting, untrained patients may have physical access to systems.
This puts a critical focus on usability and human factors considerations and the complexity of the use environment.
Further, as medical devices incorporate more software and become cyber-physical devices, the regulators are also
focusing on privacy and security (ISO 21827) and software life cycle management (ISO 62304).
Figure 1 Overlap of Regulations and Standards for Medical Device Development. (Modified from (Malins et al. 2015). Used with
Permission. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.)
Medical Device regulations, guidance, and technical standards are constantly changing, adding a complex dynamic
to manage and incorporate throughout the product development life cycle.
Systems Engineering for Healthcare IT

Systems Engineering for Healthcare Information Technology is very similar to other IT developments, with the
addition of medical regulations. Healthcare Information Technology is critical to efficient flow of information and
delivery of services . (Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 2010) The product development is
a mix of contract driven development (with a target customer, such as healthcare.gov), and market driven (where
there are more standard products, with minimal customization). Much of the market, especially for hospitals and
hospital chains, is a mix of standard products with large amounts of customization to the customer’s specific needs,
terminology, and workflows.
Systems Engineering for Pharmaceuticals

The pharmaceutical industry leverages systems that include hardware, software and sometimes single-use
components in different part of their value chain, for example complex analytical systems during drug discovery,
complex bioreactors and downstream filtration and chromatography systems in manufacturing and drug delivery
devices for the use of their drugs. These systems are subject to very different regulations, e.g. GMP or medical
devices, depending on the use. One challenging aspect of these systems is that the users have different skill sets and
working under different environments. And in all of the examples below, biological and/or chemical processes run
on these systems, requiring deep domain knowledge of the system development teams.
The in-vitro diagnostic industry also uses many systems, small devices (e.g. self-testing blood glucose or coagulation
monitoring systems) all the way to large, fully automated, high throughput systems for the use in centralized
laboratories. Very often, these systems operate as a closed system, so that the reagents used for the diagnostics tests,
are proprietary and the vendor of the system only guarantees high quality results only when using the proprietary
chemistry. This enables the vendors to often ‘place’ the instruments as highly competitive prices when the actual
profit is generated through the consumables.
For the chemistry part of pharma, understanding the scientific method, using a systems thinking approach, and using
six sigma approaches to managing variation and interdependencies is critical. Once you create a product which
includes software and physical parts (including manufacturing equipment), systems engineering of the functional
design, design analysis, and integration and verification of the solution become critical.
Systems Challenges for Public Health

Summits and inquiries into problems or shortcomings in the public health space have consistently uncovered the
same issues: systemic failures in the way that public health is approached that make it nearly impossible to
adequately respond to major health events. Examples can be seen from the US response to Hurricane Katrina (e.g.
The White House 2006), the 2011 Thoku tsunami (e.g. Carafano 2011, The Heritage Foundation 2012), or even the
2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa (e.g. GHTC 2015).
The White House report provides insights into just a few of potential challenges for the health aspects of disasters or
large-scale emergencies (2006, Chapter 6):
• Tens of thousands of people may require medical care.
• Large portions of a population with chronic medical conditions may themselves without access to their usual
medications and sources of medical care.
• Hospitals and other healthcare facilities may be totally destroyed or otherwise rendered inoperable and the area’s
health care infrastructure may sustain extraordinary damage.
The types of public health challenges will also change over time: Immediate challenges include the identification,
triage and treatment of acutely sick and injured patients; the management of chronic medical conditions in large
numbers of evacuees with special health care needs; the assessment, communication and mitigation of public health
risk; and the provision of assistance to State and local health officials to quickly reestablish health care delivery
systems and public health infrastructures. (The White House 2006) As time passes, longer-term infectious disease
outbreaks may occur or environmental impacts may cause health risks (e.g. Fukushima nuclear meltdown after the
2010 tsunami). And over time, the public health and overall healthcare infrastructure must be re-established and
repaired.
But the public health “system” in most countries, as currently structured, is not prepared to deal with these types of
challenges. In talking about the US, Salinsky and Gursky state, “Despite recent attention to the biodefense role of
public health, policymakers have not developed a clear, realistic vision for the structure and functionality of the
governmental public health system. Lack of leadership and organizational disconnects across levels of government
have prevented strategic alignment of resources and undermined momentum for meaningful change. A transformed
public health system is needed to address the demands of emergency preparedness and health protection. … The
future public health system cannot afford to be dictated by outmoded tools, unworkable structures, and outdated
staffing models.” (2006)
The framing of the challenge as a systems one requires the application of a systems approach, and the use of tools
capable of supporting systems views, to enable better understanding of the challenges for public health and for
creating ways to address these challenges. The SEBoK knowledge areas on Enterprise Systems Engineering and
Systems of Systems (SoS) at least partially consider some of these challenges from a systems engineering
perspective.
Systems Biology for Healthcare

As systems science is a foundation for system engineering, systems biology is becoming recognized as a
foundational discipline for healthcare systems engineering. Systems biology is an emerging discipline and is
recognized as strategically important when tackling complex healthcare problems. The development of systems
biology is also an emerging environment for systems engineers.
According to Harvard University, “Systems biology is the study of systems of biological components, which may be
molecules, cells, organisms or entire species. Living systems are dynamic and complex and their behavior may be
hard to predict from the properties of individual parts. To study them, we use quantitative measurements of the
behavior of groups of interacting components, systematic measurement technologies such as genomics,
bioinformatics and proteomics, and mathematical and computational models to describe and predict dynamical
behavior. Systems problems are emerging as central to all areas of biology and medicine.” (Harvard University 2010)
As systems biology matures, its integration into healthcare approaches is expected to lead to advanced practices such
as personalized and connected healthcare and the resolution of complex diseases.
Conclusion
While systems engineering practices apply to the healthcare domain, they face different challenges than other
industries and need to be tailored. In fact, different segments of the healthcare industry can take significantly
different approaches to effective systems engineering and systems thinking.
References
Works Cited
21 CFR 820.30. “Part 820 – Quality System Regulation: Subpart C – Design Controls.” Title 21 – Food and Drugs:
Chapter I – Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services: Subchapter H – Medical
Devices. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=820.30
Andel, C., S.L. Davidow, M. Hollander, D.A. Moreno. 2012. “The economics of health care quality and medical
errors.” Journal of Health Care Finance. 39(1):39:50. Abstract available at: http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/
pubmed/ 23155743 200,000 Americans die from preventable medical errors including facility-acquired conditions
and millions may experience errors. In 2008, medical errors cost the United States $19.5 billion.
Carafono, J.J. 2011. The Great Eastern Japan Earthquake: Assessing Disaster Response and Lessons for the U.S.
Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. Special Report #94 for Japan. May 25, 2011.
FDA. 2014. “Premarket Approval (PMA)”. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Accessed
February 17, 2016. Available at: http:/ / www. fda. gov/ Medicaldevices/ Deviceregulationandguidance/
Howtomarketyourdevice/Premarketsubmissions/Premarketapprovalpma/Default.Htm
GHTC. 2015. “Will We Learn from the Lessons of the Ebola Outbreak?” 2015 Policy Report. Washington, DC:
Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC).
Gursky, E. 2005. Epidemic Proportions: Building National Public Health Capabilities to Meeting National Security
Threats. Arlington, VA: Analytic Services Inc. (ANSER).
Harvard University. 2010. “Department of Systems Biology.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Accessed
February 17, 2016. Available at: https://sysbio.med.harvard.edu/
Hospital Safety Score. 2013. “Hospital Errors are the Third Leading Cause of Death in U.S., and New Hospital
Safety Scores Show Improvements are Too Slow.” Washington, DC: The LeapFrog Group. Accessed February 17,
2016. Available at: http:/ / www. hospitalsafetyscore. org/ newsroom/ display/
hospitalerrors-thirdleading-causeofdeathinus-improvementstooslow
IEC. 2015. Medical devices – Part 1: Application of usability engineering to medical devices. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Electrotechnical Commissions. IEC 62366-1:2015. Available at: http:/ / www. iso. org/ iso/
catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=63179
INCOSE. 2015. “Section 8.2.2.” Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and
Activities, version 4.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0
Institute of Medicine. 1999. To Err is Human: Building a Safe Health System. Washington, DC: The National
Academy Press, The National Academy of Sciences. Novermber 1999. Available at: https:/ / iom.
nationalacademies. org/ ~/ media/ Files/ Report%20Files/ 1999/ To-Err-is-Human/
To%20Err%20is%20Human%201999%20%20report%20brief.pdf
Leveson, N.G. 2011. Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2010. Report to the President: Realizing the Full
Potential of Health Information Technology to Improve Healthcare for Americans: The Path Forward. Washington,
DC: Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, The White House. December 2010. Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-health-it-report.pdf.
Reid, T.R. 2010. The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. New York,
NY: Penguin Books.
Salinsky, E. and E. Gursky. 2006. “The Case for Transforming Governmental Public Health.” Health Affairs. 25(4).
1017-2018. Available at: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/4/1017.full
The Heritage Foundation. 2012. One Year Later: Lessons from Recover After the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake.
Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. Special Report #108 on Asia and the Pacific. April 26, 2012.
The White House. 2006. The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The White
House. February 2006. Available at http://library.stmarytx.edu/acadlib/edocs/katrinawh.pdf
Primary References
None.
None.

Overview of the Healthcare Sector

Lead Author: Chris Unger, Contributing Author: Cyrus Hillsman
This article describes some of the stakeholders of the healthcare sector and the factors which influence the
application of systems engineering within it. For an overview of healthcare systems engineering and how it deals
with these influences see the Healthcare Systems Engineering article.
The healthcare sector is a complex system made up of people, facilities, laws and regulations. It addresses current
health, tries to ensure wellness, treats medical problems; creates new medication and medical devices; manages the
health both individuals and populations; and helps determine regulations for safety, privacy, the environment, and
healthcare delivery itself.
Stakeholders
There are many types of stakeholders in the healthcare sector. The space covers everyone from the general public –
who have a stake in their own health and the health of those around them for issues like infectious disease – to the
individual researchers who investigate current healthcare problems. The high-level groups of stakeholders include:
• The general public;
• Healthcare providers (such as doctors, nurses, clinics, and hospitals);
• Payers (such as insurance companies);
• Public health organizations;
• Researchers, scientists, and corporations in the pharmaceutical industry;
• Medical device manufacturers;
• Policy makers (particularly those with interest in public health, healthcare safety or privacy policies);
• Healthcare information technology technicians and organizations; and
• Professional organizations and societies relevant to the various aspects of the space.
The healthcare sector is an enormous area financially as well. For example, out of $2.87 trillion on healthcare spent
in the US in 2010, the breakdown of components is:
US Healthcare Expenditures in 2010 (information from Emmanual 2014)

Hospital Care $921B
Physician Services $555B
Prescription Drugs $280B
Nursing Home Care $151B
Other Medical Products $113B
Dental Services $93B
Government Public Health $84B
Other Professional Services $79B
Home Health Care $77B
Research $48B
The sections below provide insight into the landscape for these the stakeholder groups where there is sufficient
information currently available. More detail will be added as the healthcare aspects of the SEBoK mature and the
team will take particular care to incorporate additional information from outside the US going forward.
Healthcare Delivery
The largest share of the money spent on healthcare in the US healthcare is in hospitals (almost a third). The number
of hospitals has been relatively flat for the last 20 years. However, due to the growing cost pressures and increasing
paperwork, there has been a general consolidation of hospitals into chains, and independent physician providers into
hospitals or group practices. (Emmanuel 2014)
Overall Hospital Landscape (information from (AHA 2014))

Total Number of All U.S. Registered * Hospitals 5,627
Total Number of U.S. Community ** Hospitals 4,926
Total Number of Nongovernment Not-for-Profit Community Hospitals 2,870
Total Number of Investor-Owned (For-Profit) Community Hospitals 1,053
Total Number of State and Local Government Community Hospitals 1,003
Total Number of Federal Government Hospitals 213
Total Number of Nonfederal Psychiatric Hospitals 403
Hospitals range from small community hospitals to the New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical
Center with 2,259 beds (Becker 201)], or the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian with $12B in
revenue in 2013. (Becker 2013).
Hospital chains tend to be less than 10 hospitals, with less than 10 chains having more than 10 hospitals (Becker
2015). The largest two have almost 200 hospitals (Community Health Systems with 188 and Hospital Corporation of
America with 166). The largest systems by revenue are Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans Health Administration
with revenue or budget of slightly over $50B each.
Medical Devices Manufacturers

The medical device development landscape is diverse, composed of many markets of intermediate size (many being
above $10B in size, with high single digit to double digit growth rates). Some examples are, with projected market
sizes in 2020, are:
Types of Medical Devices and Projected Market Share (Emmanuel 2014)

Medical Device Type Projected Market Share
In-vitro diagnostics (IVD) $75B
Endoscopy $33B
Interventional Cardiology $27B
Infection control $17B
Minimally invasive surgery $14B
Defibrillators $13B
Dental Implants $10B
Infusion pump $ 7B
Magnetic Resonance $ 7B
Digital Xray $ 5B
As described in Healthcare Systems Engineering, this is the area of the healthcare sector that is most closely aligned
with classic product-focused businesses.
Healthcare IT
There is a large uncertainty in what constitutes Healthcare IT. The most visible segment is the Electronic Medical
Record (EMR) or Electronic Health Record (EHR), but there is also large markets in billing management, clinical
decision support, image management, etc. But there is a divergence of market sizes with estimates around $60B
[Bain, FierceIT] and some around $104B [Markets and Markets, MedGadget, and PRNewswire].
An EHR installation at a hospital is similar to an Oracle database installation at a company, where much of the cost
is customizing the database and workflows to the institution’s policies and workflows, and in training the users to the
new system and standardized practices which come with IT and automation.
The top 10 Healthcare IT solution providers in 2015 (information from (Healthcare

Informatic 2015))
Company 2015 Revenue
Optum $5.2B
Cerner Corp. $3.4B
McKesson $3.1B
Dell $2.9B
Cognizant $2.7B
Philips $2.7B
Xerox $2.4B
Siemens $2.0B
Epic Systems Corp. $1.8B
GE Healthcare $1.5B
Public Health Systems

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines public health as “all organized measures … to prevent disease,
promote health, and prolong life among the population as a whole. Its activities aim to provide conditions in which
people can be healthy and focus on entire populations, not on individual patients or diseases. Thus, public health is
concerned with the total system and not only the eradication of a particular disease.” (WHO 2016) Governments at
each level define exactly what “public health” will encompass, but typically there are three areas: epidemiology,
provision of health services, and workplace and environmental safety and policy. Epidemiology is the study and
control health-related events, including disease. Various methods can be used to carry out epidemiological
investigations: surveillance and descriptive studies can be used to study distribution; analytical studies are used to
study determinants.” (WHO 2016, “Health topics: Epidemiology”). Health services may include services such as
preventive vaccinations, disease screening, or well-baby or well-child programs. Environmental safety can include
developing policies for automobile or workplace safety, monitoring the quality of drinking water, or even conducting
restaurant health inspections. In addition to these wide varieties of work, public health organizations are increasingly
expected to be responsible for the health-related aspects of disaster and emergency response efforts.
In the US, the public health “system” is really a patchwork of independent healthcare departments. Each state or
territory defines the scope and responsibilities of its own public health “department”, requiring information and
cooperation from hospitals, private physicians, emergency personnel, laboratory networks, and sometimes public
health organizations from other states. (Gursky 2005)
Conclusion
In addition to each group of stakeholders being complex in itself, these stakeholders then interact and work together -
or sometimes contradict one another. This makes the landscape of the healthcare systems engineering space itself
complex and highlights the need for systems thinking and systems approaches when attempting to address any
health-related issues or challenges.
References
Works Cited
AHA. 2014. "Fast Facts on US Hospitals." Chicago, IL: American Hospital Association (AHA). September 2014.
Available at: http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml
Becker's Healthcare. 2015. "10 largest for-profit hospital systems | 2015". Becker's Hospital Review. June 30, 2015.
Available at: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/10-largest-for-profit-hospital-systems-2015.html
Becker's Healthcare. 2014. "100 Largest Hospitals in the US". Becker's Hospital Review. August 7, 2014. Available
at: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/8-7-14-100-largest-hospitals-in-america.html
Becker's Healthcare. 2013. "100 Top-Grossing Hospitals in the US". Becker's Hospital Review. June 24, 2013.
Available at: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/100-top-grossing-hospitals-in-america-2013.html
Eliades, G., M. Retterath, N. Hueltenschmidt, and K. Singh. 2012. Healthcare 2020. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Bain & Company. Available at: http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_BRIEF_Healthcare_2020.pdf.
Emmanuel, E.J. 2014 Reinventing American Health Care: How the Affordable Care Act will Improve our Terribly
Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System. New York City, NY:
PublicAffairs.
Gold, A. 2014. "Global healthcare IT market projected to hit $66 billion by 2020." FierceHealthIT. April 1, 2014.
Available at; http:/ / www. fiercehealthit. com/ story/ global-healthcare-it-market-projected-hit-66-billion-2020/
2014-04-01.
Gursky, E. 2005. Epidemic Proportions: Building National Public Health Capabilities to Meeting National Security
Threats. Arlington, VA: Analytic Services Inc. (ANSER). Healthcare Informatics. 2015."2015 HCI 100." Available
at: http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/hci100/2015-hci-100-list
Markets and Markets. 2015. North American Healthcare IT Market by Product (EHR, RIS, PACS, VNA, CPOE,
mHealth, Telehealth, Healthcare analytics, Supply Chain Management, Revenue Cycle Management, CRM, Claims
Management) by End User (Provider, Payer) - Forecast to 2020. October 2015. Available at: http:/ / www.
marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/north-america-healthcare-it-market-1190.html
MedGadget. 2015. "Global Healthcare IT Market 2020 - Industry Survey, Market Size, Competitive Trends: Radiant
Insights, Inc". November 2, 2015. Available at: http:/ / www. medgadget. com/ 2015/ 11/
global-healthcare-it-market-2020-industry-survey-market-size-competitive-trends-radiant-insights-inc.html
PRNewswire. 2015. "Healthcare IT Market Size to Reach $104.5 Billion by 2020: Grand View Research, Inc."
October 15, 2015. Available at: http:/ / www. prnewswire. com/ news-releases/
healthcare-it-market-size-to-reach-1045-billion-by-2020-grand-view-research-inc-533012831.html
WHO. 2016. "Health Topics: Epidemiology." Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available at: http:/ /
www.who.int/topics/epidemiology/en/
WHO. 2016. "Trade, foreign policy, diplomacy, and health: Public Health." Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization. Available at: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story076/en/
Primary References
None.
None.

Systems Engineering in Healthcare Delivery

Lead Author: Cyrus Hillsman, Contributing Authors: Chris Unger, Nicole Hutchison
The healthcare system is complex and adaptive and confronts significant challenges for which systems engineering
tools are useful and necessary. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) prepared
a report concluding that healthcare improvement could be accelerated with the use of systems engineering. (PCAST
2014) They noted that they key incentives are wrong (fee for service vs. fee for outcomes), and key enablers are
missing (access to useful data, lack accepted systems techniques and people trained in systems engineering)
This article provides an overview of healthcare delivery with some historical context, and describes some different
approaches to systems engineering which have been found helpful in addressing healthcare delivery problems.
Human Centered Design

Healthcare delivery is not a product but a service and that makes it different than typical hardware or software design
that may be seen in aerospace, defense, or even medical devices. There are three primary factors for these
differences. First, quality in services can be difficult to measure objectively. Second, in this service system, care
providers are continually making risk, cost, and quality of care decisions at the time of service. Each patient is
unique and multiple pathologies and value streams are possible based upon any given patient’s needs. Those needs
are complemented by a care team that is unique and complex and includes the patients themselves, family support,
medical professionals, hospitals, and even the industry in which it resides. Third, if returning to or maintaining
wellness is considered to be the core value for a healthcare delivery system, then the patient’s behaviors both within
and outside any designed care plan has a significant role to play, because roughly half of all healthcare cost is
derived from preventable disease. (Conover 2012)
Structure of the Healthcare Delivery Industry

The healthcare industry is large, diverse, and fragmented and this causes considerable complexity. This complexity
is experienced both at the macro and micro levels.
At the macro level the healthcare industry is highly fragmented with over 50% of all healthcare workers employed in
companies with less than 500 employees. (Griffith & White 2007) Nearly 1 million physicians practice medicine in
the US; roughly half of these are in primary care and the rest are in over 30 specialties and many more subspecialties
and clinics. In addition to physicians, some 5 million others in some 50 other specialties provide care to patients.
At the micro level, the complexity and pace of change make care difficult. Healthcare is a rapidly developing field
with over 700,000 publications produced annually and the pace in fact is increasing. (Smith et al. 2013). That there
are already 14,400 codes in the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and
Related Health Problems (ICD) complicates the issue. Add to this the regulatory and administrative burden of
primary care providers interacting with approximately 200 specialists in any given year and the complexity that care
providers face on a daily basis becomes clear.
In short, the healthcare delivery system is itself a complex adaptive system and represents a wicked_problem_,
whereby any changes to the system intended to solve an issue will likely create other issues.
Improving Ongoing Operations

As mentioned, above caregivers are faced with many challenges and the goal of in systems engineering in healthcare
delivery is to lessen that burden in a systematic way without significant disruption of current operations. To do this
successfully requires several factors:
• First, as stated above, systems engineers have to acknowledge that they are dealing with a complex adaptive
system that includes many wicked problems. An analogy is that what systems engineers experience in healthcare
is like rewiring a house with the power turned on because whatever changes are made are to an existing system
that must operate while the changes are being made.
• Second, “the system” in place is difficult to define. The "healthcare system" is actually a combination of many
open systems and interdependencies with the system of interest may be unknown.
• Third, patient safety is always a concern and any actions that could affect patient safety must be very carefully
considered. Often, "optimizing" a system may introduce a potential risk to patient safety. These system aspects
are always in tension.
• Fourth, there is a bias towards the current (known) system versus a change leading to an unknown system. Any
change will create a certain amount of disruption to an operational system that may be currently operating at or
beyond capacity.
• Fifth, healthcare delivery systems are combinations of patients, providers, process, and products and therefore
uncertainty is a daily reality. This level of uncertainty may not be amenable to typical agile approaches of 4-6
week sprints nor traditional waterfall methods.
• Sixth, local factors could play a significant role; therefore no two sites may perform an operation in exactly the
same way.
• Seventh, the entire industry acts as a complex adaptive system with multiple intelligent agents working sometimes
in partnership and sometimes in conflict with the goals of the system or patient.
Because of these factors and others the tradition of healthcare systems engineering has been to use adaptable
human-centered methods. (Checkland 1999)
History of Healthcare Improvement Research

There have been many attempts to understand and improve healthcare both in the public and private domains.
Examples include the National Healthcare Service Change Model, the efforts of the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Here we outline some representative efforts.
Healthcare improvement has been shaped in part by four seminal works by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). To Err
is Human reported that up to 98,000 patients were killed by healthcare each year. (Kohn, Corrigan, & Donaldson
2000) This put an emphasis on safety as a key quality of care metric. The following year the Institute of Medicine
(IOM) broadened the concept of quality beyond safety to include six measures of quality. They determined that
healthcare should be safe, effective, patient centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. (Institute of Medicine 2001)
This report called Crossing the Quality Chasm included an appendix that documented poor quality and the severity
of the issues of under use, over use, and potential for harm in medicine. A search for the underlying reasons for poor
quality led to three primary reasons for poor quality. The three reasons were the growing complexity of science and
technology; the increase in chronic conditions; and the failure to exploit information technology.
To address these concerns the IOM partnered with the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) to see what could
be done from a systems engineering perspective to address the real challenges facing the industry in Building a
Better Delivery System. (Compton et al. 2005). That was followed by the realization that standard systems
engineering needed to be modified and healthcare was and would remain a human centered endeavor as stated in
Best Care at Lower Cost (Smith et al. 2013)
Three Approaches
Although there are many accepted approaches to healthcare systems engineering and improvement, here we outline
three that share common characteristics and are representative of most of the other methods.
The first approach is Lean Six Sigma which is a combination of two methods. Lean has its roots in the Toyota
Production System (Ohno 1988) and the work of the International Motor Vehicle Program (Womack, Jones, & Roos
1990). Six-Sigma has its roots at Motorola and the work of Bill Smith. These two methods were combined by
Michael L. George (see (George 2002) and (George 2003)). It includes techniques like value stream mapping, waste
elimination, root cause analysis, and voice of customer. For additional information see Lean Engineering and Lean in
Healthcare.
The second approach is based on industrial engineering, which has its roots in the work of Frederick Taylor and
others. This approach includes tools such as discrete event simulation, ergonomics, production control, and
operations research as shown in Figure 1. For additional information, see Systems Engineering and Industrial
Engineering.
Insert Table ES-1 from Building a Better Delivery System here once we obtain the proper permissions.
The third approach is healthcare systems engineering. Traditional systems engineering uses a functional
decomposition approach; see for example (Defense Systems Management College 2001). However, healthcare
problems are often classified as wicked and complex and not amenable to traditional decomposition methods found
in other areas of engineering. (Rouse & Serban 2014).
There are many tailored approaches to improving healthcare delivery, but almost all are based on one of these three
approaches, or a combination of these.
Healthcare Systems Engineering

The basic systems engineering steps are similar to those for any industry specific applications, but the steps are
tailored for healthcare. The traditional waterfall model of requirements, design, implementation, verification, and
maintenance is interrupted in favor of almost continuous support. In many cases the closeout and transfer of the
project to operational staff is more challenging in healthcare than in many industries.
Below is outlined a general methodology used by the US Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) that may suit a wide
variety of situations and programs, composed of 4 pillars: Define the Problem, Investigate Alternatives, Develop the
Solution, and Launch and Assess the Solution. These 4 pillars are similar to classic mistake avoidance, development
fundamentals, risk management, and schedule oriented approaches. (McConnell 1996); they are also similar to the
Plan/Do/Check/Act methodology.
Define the Problem

As mentioned above, the patient is augmented by a care team consisting of family, friends, clinical staff, and many
other support staff the patient will not directly encounter. This care team may not be familiar with the rigors of
traditional engineering design. Because of this, a systems engineer may use a paired partnership model where
engineers are embedded with clinical and administrative staff, family, and the patients themselves. In this concept,
everyone is a designer and our goal is to provide them with the tools to contribute to the system design process. Even
at this early stage, configuration management would be considered. Depending on the size of the rollout one alpha
site and several beta sites may be used at any phase to avoid local optimal solutions that don’t work globally.
Investigate Alternatives
During the proof-of-concept phase, visualizing the result is important for the reasons mentioned above. Therefore,
one or more initial prototypes may be developed with the alpha site. The goal is to get to a minimally viable product
as soon as possible to demonstrate the viability of the product or methodology. After the initial conversations and
meetings, participants have a need to have a common understanding of how the system will work. The systems
engineer would embrace the concept of operations with rich pictures, model based systems engineering, story
boards, customer journey maps and other tools so that we all have a common understanding of the proposed system.
Develop the Solution

Using what has been learned from the minimally viable product feedback and incorporate that into the future state
optimization, one would continue developing the prototype at the initial paired partner alpha site and then the trusted
beta demonstration sites. In our case, stakeholders are a part of the development team and not an ancillary function.
For this reason, demonstration is considered a key element of the communication plan when developing the solution.
Launch the Solution and Access the Performance

During evaluation and deployment phase, a systems engineer would have considered the future state optimization
with corresponding alpha and beta sites. Live implementation would then be used for further testing and evaluation.
At any phase feedback is encouraged and reflected in the next iteration of the solution. As mentioned previously
abandonment and closeout even during the live phase may not be practical and in fact could be disadvantageous
because not all possible needed configurations or situations would have been encountered.
Example Systems Engineering Tools

Below is a list of systems engineering tools which could be used at each of the four steps.
1. Define the Problem
1. Establish the scope and context of the problem (define boundary conditions)
2. Stakeholder identification and management
3. Lifecycle mapping
4. Value Stream Process Mapping
5. SWOT analysis (Operational Deficiencies and Technological Opportunities)
6. Workflow/Usability/Use Case analysis
7. Observation Research
8. Root Cause Analysis (Fishbone diagrams, 5 whys, …)
2. Investigate Alternatives
1. Requirements management
2. SE Evaluation Methods (Decision Trees, Quality Function Deployment (QFD))
3. Trade-off Analysis
4. Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)
5. Technical Risk Management
3. Develop the Solution
1. Concept Development
2. Architecting the solution (functional analysis, subsystem decomposition, interface definition and control,
modeling)
3. Define the implementation
4. Process Redesign Techniques (including Lean Six Sigma)

5. Active Integration
6. Agile / Lean Development Principles (iterative development)
4. Launch and Assess the Solution
1. Managing Change in Organizations
2. Stakeholder Management, Change Management Techniques
3. Spiral, Agile, and Lean Startup Delivery Practices (Minimal Viable Product delivery)
4. Business Risk Management
5. Metrics and benchmarking
During all phases, elements of cognitive & organizational psychology, industrial engineering, usability engineering,
systems engineering, and other facets may be critical to implement a solution. Humans are the major part of the
system and even the system of systems approach in healthcare.
Conclusion
Systems Engineering for Healthcare delivery shares many aspects with traditional SE, but differs significantly since
healthcare delivery is a service (not a product) and due to the domain specific challenges. In particular, problem
definition is a particularly ‘wicked’ problem, and measuring successful outcomes in a clear and objective fashion is
challenging.
References
Works Cited
Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley.
Compton, W.D., G. Fanjiang, J.H. Grossman, & P.P. Reid. 2005. Building a better delivery system: a new
engineering/health care partnership. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Conover, C.J. 2012. American health economy illustrated. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Defense Systems Management College. 2001. Systems engineering fundamentals: Supplementary text. Fort Belvoir,
VA: The Press.
George, M.L. 2002. Lean Six Sigma. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
George, M.L. 2003. Lean Six Sigma for Service. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Griffith, J.R., & K.R. White. 2007. The Well-Managed Healthcare Organization. Chicago, IL: Health
Administration Press.
Institute of Medicine. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.
Kohn, L.T., J. Corrigan, & M.S. Donaldson. 2000. To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.
McConnell, S. 1996. Rapid Development. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
Ohno, T. 1988. Toyota Production System. Portland OR: Productivity Press.
PCAST. 2014. Better Health Care and Lower Costs: Accelerating Improvement through Systems Engineering.
Washington DC.: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
Rouse, W.B., & N. Serban. 2014. Understanding and managing the complexity of healthcare. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Smith, M.D., R.S. Saunders, L. Stuckhardt, & J.M. McGinnis. 2013. Best care at lower cost: The path to
continuously learning health care in America. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones, and D. Roos.1990. The machine that changed the world. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Primary References
PCAST. 2014. Better Health Care and Lower Costs: Accelerating Improvement through Systems Engineering.
Washington DC.: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
None.

Systems Biology
Lead Authors: Bridgette Daniel Allegro, Gary Smith, Contributing Authors: Chris Unger, Nicole Hutchison
Systems biology is the computational and mathematical modelling of complex biological systems. Systems biology
is a biology-based inter-disciplinary field of study that focuses on complex interactions within biological systems,
using a holistic approach to biological research. From year 2000 onwards, the concept has been used in the
biosciences in a variety of contexts. For example, the Human Genome Project is an example of applied systems
thinking in biology which has led to new, collaborative ways of working on problems in the biological field of
genetics. One of the outreaching aims of systems biology is to model and discover emergent properties of cells,
tissues and organisms functioning as a system whose theoretical description is only possible using techniques which
fall under the remit of systems biology. These typically involve metabolic networks or cell signalling networks.
(Wikipedia Contributors 2016)
Systems Biology: A Vision for Engineering and Medicine
Organisms and Hosts Interact in Communities of Life

There is an increasing appreciation that microbes are an essential part of the ecologically-important traits of their
host. Organisms do not live in isolation, but have evolved, and continue to evolve, in the context of complex
communities and specific environmental conditions. Evolutionary biologists are increasingly able to integrate
information across many organisms, from multiple levels of organization and about entire systems to gain a new
integrated understanding that incorporates more and more of the complexity that characterizes interdependent
species associations. Only when we begin to understand the molecular base for adaptation and interactions of
communities of life, can we start to comprehend how ecosystems are functioning.
Addressing Different Levels of Organization of Organisms

Understanding the function of complex biological systems is one of the greatest challenges facing science. The
rewards of success will range from better medicines to new engineering materials. The sequencing of the human
genome, although of fundamental importance, does not even provide a complete parts list of the protein molecules
that exist in a biological organism because of complexities of downstream processing and complex folding required
to make a functioning receptor or enzyme from a long chain of amino acids. Furthermore, protein molecules do not
Systems Biology 756
function alone but exist in complex assemblies and pathways that form the building blocks of organelles, cells,
tissues, organs, organ systems and organisms, including man. The functioning of brain or muscle, liver or kidney, let
alone a whole person, is much greater than the sum of its parts.
Figure 1 - Levels of Structural Organization of the Human Body (source - https:/ / cnx. org/ contents/
Xh_25wmA@7/Structural-Organization-of-the#fig-ch01_02_01)'''
Internalizing the Complexity – Pushes the Boundary of Systems Thinking Capability

To tackle this problem (understanding biological systems) requires an iterative application of biomedical knowledge
and experiment with mathematical, computational and engineering techniques to build and test complex
mathematical models. Systems and control engineering concepts, a modular approach and vastly increased
computing capacity are of critical importance. The models, once developed and validated, can be used to study a
vastly greater range of situations and interventions than would be possible by applying classical reductionist
experimental methods that usually involve changes in a small number of variables. This new approach is now termed
"Systems Biology". It allows insight into the large amount of data from molecular biology and genomic research,
integrated with an understanding of physiology, to model the complex function of cells, organs and whole
organisms, bringing with it the potential to improve our knowledge of health and disease. Systems Biology will
inevitably become an approach that pervades scientific research, in much the same way that molecular biology has
come to underpin the biological sciences. It will transform the vast quantities of biological information currently
available into applications for engineering and medicine.
Natural Patterns and Engineered Patterns Can Be a Source of Inspiration - in Both

Directions
Biological organisms are much more complicated than any machine designed by man. However, there are
similarities between the way in which organs and whole organisms are assembled from molecules and cells and the
design methods used by engineers in the construction of complex systems. The application of such methods to
biology will, however, require novel engineering tools to be developed since biological systems possess key features
that artificial ones do not. Specifically, biological systems have an exceptional capacity for self-organization and
assembly, using rules and mechanisms that have been shaped by natural selection. Biological systems also have
significant capacity for continuing self-maintenance through turnover and renewal of component parts. Perhaps the
property that distinguishes biological systems most is their ability to auto-adapt their organization to changing
circumstances through altered gene expression, or more directly, through signal transduction and modification of
proteins. This adaptation culminates at higher levels of organization as evidenced by phenomena such as the
development of resistance to antibiotic therapy or tolerance to recreational drugs. The mechanisms by which
component parts interact are often highly stochastic in nature; that is, susceptible to the play of chance, which
becomes particularly important when only a few components are being considered. Nevertheless, biological systems
are robust.
Advancements in Methods for Predicting “What If” in the Behavior of Complex Adaptive
Systems
Advances in engineering design and techniques carry a significant potential in driving the progress of Systems
Biology. Interventions to biological systems intended to improve health, whether environmental, pharmacological or
clinical, need to be carefully thought through and carried out to maximize benefit and reduce harm. The refinement
of techniques and tools enables devices and systems to achieve a defined performance within precise tolerance
limits, potentially allowing better interventions to complex biological systems. They will be increasingly necessary
to permit more reliable system-wide predictions of the effects of biomedical advances and to achieve desired clinical
results to a predefined tolerance, or at least to have a quantitative bound on the biological uncertainty.
Systems Biology 757
Transdisciplinary Approaches are Needed to Address the Complex Bio-system Problems

Research in the field of Systems Biology requires close interactions and collaborations between many disciplines
that have traditionally operated separately such as medicine, biology, engineering, computer science, chemistry,
physics and mathematics. Systems Biology demands a focus on the problem as a whole and therefore a combination
of skills, knowledge and expertise that embraces multiple disciplines. The success of leaders in the field of Systems
Biology will depend strongly on the extent to which they accomplish the creation of the environment that researchers
need to develop an understanding of different working cultures, and manage also to implement strategies that
integrate these cultures into shared working practices.
Systems Biology: Relevance to Healthcare
Complex Diseases Demand Systemic Approaches

Over the past few decades, pharmaceutical R&D has focused on creating potent drugs directed at single targets. This
approach was very successful in the past when biomedical knowledge as well as cures and treatments could focus on
relatively simple causality. Nowadays, the medical conditions that affect a significant proportion of the population in
industrialized countries are more complex, not least because of their multifactorial nature. The sequencing of the
human genome has led to a considerable increase in the number of potential targets that can be considered in drug
discovery and promises to shed light on the etiology of such conditions. Yet, the knowledge of the physiological
properties and the role that these targets play in disease development is still limited.
Diminishing Returns in the Single Target Approach to Disease

In terms of drug targets, there is a case that much of ‘the low hanging fruit’ was picked in the period between the late
1940s and the mid-1980s. The decline in output of new molecular entities and medicines recorded over the last 20
years, despite the steadily growing R&D expenditure and significant increase in sales, bears testimony to the fact that
advances with new targets are more difficult and that R&D projects have become much more prone to failure. A
basic problem is that the many factors that predispose to, and cause, complex diseases are poorly understood let
alone the way in which they interact. The very fact that there are multiple drivers for these conditions suggests that a
reductionist approach focusing on individual entities in isolation is no longer appropriate and may even be
misleading. It is therefore necessary to consider ‘novel’ drugs designed to act upon multiple targets in the context of
the functional networks that underlie the development of complex diseases. Many of the new developments are
likely to turn into effective medicines when combinations of drugs are used to exert a moderate effect at each of
several points in a biological control system. Indeed, many common diseases such as hypertension and diabetes are
already treated with a combination of two or three medicines hitting different targets in the control network that
underlies the condition. Investigating the possible combinations by trial and error in man is onerous but feasible with
two components. However, it quickly becomes extremely complicated with three components and well-nigh
impossible with four or more. Systems Biology, promises to assist in the development of more specific compounds
and in the identification of optimal drug targets on the basis of their importance as key ‘nodes’ within an overall
network, rather than on the basis of their properties as isolated components.
Individualized Medicine, Tuned to the Individual and Their Circumstances

Increasingly powerful drugs will be aimed at a decreasing percentage of people and eventually at single individuals.
Modelling can be used to integrate in vivo information across species. Coupled with in vitro and in silico data, it can
predict pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics behavior in humans and potentially link chemical structure and
physicochemical properties of the compound with drug behavior in vivo. Large-scale integrated models of disease,
such as diabetes and obesity, are being developed for the simulation of the clinical effects resulting from
manipulations of one or more drug targets. These models will facilitate the selection of the most appropriate targets
Systems Biology 758
and help in planning clinical trials. Coupling this approach with pertinent genomic information holds the promise of
identifying patients likely to benefit most from or to be harmed by, a particular therapy as well as helping in the
stratification of patients in clinical trials. Symptoms that diagnose a disease do not necessarily equate to a common
cause.
Systems Biology is arguably the only research approach that has the potential to disentangle the multiple factors that
contribute to the pathogenesis of many common diseases. For example, hypertension, diabetes, obesity and
rheumatoid arthritis are known to be polygenetic in origin although individual genes may not have been identified.
Ultimately, the prevention of these conditions rests upon a comprehensive approach that engages with each of the
more important predisposing factors, genetic and environmental, that operate upon individuals. A systems approach
is already proving valuable in the study of complex scientific subjects and the research aimed at the prevention and
management of medical conditions. Illustrative examples are neuroscience, cancer, ageing and infectious diseases.
A Healthcare Paradigm Reinforcing the Causes of Health and Not Just the Treatment of
Disease
Notwithstanding the hugely important role that Systems Biology plays in understanding disease and designing drugs
that treat them, the greatest opportunities may lie in health maintenance and disease prevention. Even modest
measures that could retard the effect of ageing on brain, heart, bones, joints and skin would have a large impact on
the quality of life and future healthcare demands of older people and consequently on the provision of health
services. Young people are vulnerable too. Multifactorial diseases such as diabetes, obesity, allergies and
autoimmune conditions are becoming prevalent in younger people and unless effective measures are taken to prevent
an early and significant decline in their health, healthcare demand will increase exponentially. It is apparent that
multiple and diverse factors interact in determining health, quality of life and ageing. These include genetic makeup,
microbiota, diet, physical activity, stress, smoke and alcohol, therapeutic and social drugs, housing, pollution,
education, and only a systems approach will permit the understanding of how best to prevent and delay health
decline.
References
Works Cited
Wikipedia contributors. "Systems biology." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,
20 Aug. 2016. Web. 12 Sep. 2016.
Primary References
None.
Bosch, T.C.G. and M.J. Mc-Fall-Ngai. 2011. "Metaorganizsms as the new frontier." Zoology. 114(4): 185-190.
September 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3992624/
Dollery, C. and R. Kitney. 2007. Systems Biology: a vision for engineering and medicine. London: The Academy of
Medical Sciences and The Royal Academy of Engineering. Available at https:/ / www. acmedsci. ac. uk/ viewFile/
publicationDownloads/1176712812.pdf
Endy, D. 2005. "Foundations for engineering biology." Nature. 438(7067): 449-453. 24 November 2005. Available
at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7067/abs/nature04342.html
Harvard Medical School. 2010. "Department of Systems Biology." Cambridge, MA: Harvard Medical School,
Harvard University. Available at: https://sysbio.med.harvard.edu/
Systems Biology 759
Kitano, H. 2002. "Systems Biology: A Brief Overview." Science. 295(5560): 1662-1664. 01 March 2002. Available
at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5560/1662.
Sauser, B., J. Boardman, and D. Verma. 2010. "Toward a Biology of Systems of Systems." IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans. 40(4): 803 - 814. Available at: http:/ / ieeexplore.
ieee.org/document/5467221/
Wikipedia contributors. "Systems biology." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,
20 Aug. 2016. Web. 12 Sep. 2016.

Lean in Healthcare
Lead Author: Bohdan Oppenheim, Contributing Authors: Chris Unger, Nicole Hutchison
Lean Thinking, or Lean for short, originated in Toyota factories in the 1960s, was “transplanted” to the U.S. in 1992
with the publication of Womack and Jones' Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation
(2003), and evolved globally to practically all work domains: healthcare, engineering and systems engineering,
science, administration, supply chain, government, banking, aviation, and many others (Oppenheim 2011). Lean has
proven itself as the most effective methodology for improving operations identifying and eliminating waste from
work processes. (E.g. Womack and Jones 2003; Oppenheim 2011; Graban 2012; Toussaint and Gerard 2010; and
Oehmen 2012) Since 2003, Lean has established itself in healthcare operations.
Overview of Lean in Healthcare

Entire medical organizations (e.g., Theda Care, WI; Jefferson Healthcare, WA; Virginia Mason, WA; Geisinger
Health (now called ProvenCare), PA; St. Elizabeth, Tilburg, The Netherlands, and numerous others (e.g. Graban
2012; Toussaint and Gerard 2010)) have been transformed with Lean. These sources contain rich data on specific
improvements. Most leading healthcare institutions now have Lean centers of excellence or use Lean consultants,
including Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic, UCLA, Veterans Administration, and others. Lean has proven itself in
reducing turnaround time of clinical tests, the time spent by patients in emergency departments, operating suites,
pharmacies and clinics. Lean improvements in healthcare on the order of 30-50% are routine because traditional
healthcare operations are burdened with this much waste, which remains “unseen” by the employees unless they are
trained in Lean. Lean is now an established paradigm for improving healthcare delivery operations: increasing
quality of healthcare, delivering care faster, shortening patient time in the system, increasing the time of medical
professionals with the patient, reducing bureaucracy, increasing capacity of operations, and reducing healthcare costs
and frustrations. (Graban 2012; Toussaint and Gerard 2010)
Lean does not mean that people have to work faster or "attach roller blades to move around faster". In Lean, systems
employees work at their regular ergonomic and intellectual speeds. The time savings come from finding and
eliminating idle states (e.g., waiting in numerous queues in the emergency departments), reduction of mistakes and
rework, elimination of non-value adding tasks, and more streamlined movements of patients, staff, equipment, and
supplies. And, most emphatically, Lean does not mean “mean layoffs”. Quite the opposite is true: Lean improves
human relations at work and changes the culture from the traditional "blaming and shaming" to teamwork and
cooperation focused on the good of the patient. (Graban 2012 (in particular see the endorsements from eight medical
professionals on pages ii and iii) and (Toussaint and Gerard 2010)
With the endorsement of Lean for Systems Engineering with Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering in the Wiley
Series, (Oppenheim 2011) the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) has effectively adopted
Lean as one of its essential competencies. This book was followed with a major joint Project Management Institute
(PMI)-INCOSE-MIT publication of (Oehmen 2012) integrating Lean with Systems Engineering and Program
Management. Indeed, when applied with Systems Engineering and Systems Thinking, Lean becomes a powerful
weapon in bending the healthcare cost curve and improving the quality of care.
Three concepts are critical to the understanding of Lean: value, waste, and the process of creating value without
waste, which has been captured into the so-called Six Lean Principles, as follows.
• Value: M. Porter (2010) suggested that patients value three levels of care: (1) survival and the degree of recovery;
(2) the time required to get back to normal activities, and (3) the sustainability (individual and social cost) of
treatments.
• Waste: Table 1 lists the eight categories of waste used in healthcare. (Graban 2012; Toussaint 2010)
Table 1. Eight Waste Categories Used in Lean Helathcare (SEBoK Original).

Waste Type Healthcare Examples
1. Waiting Patients wait in numerous queues in clinics, test facilities, ERs, pharmacies, and for insurance approvals; MDs wait for
next activity to occur (e.g. test results, information, approvals.)
2. Over-processing Performing work that is not valued or needed, e.g. MDs and RNs spending time on computer filling out bureaucratic
forms that nobody will review.
3. Over-production Performing more work than needed for value. Transport of a patient in a wheelchair performed by expensive medical
professionals because of the lack of transporters.
4. Inventory Excess inventory costs. Expired supplies that must be thrown away.
5. Transportation of Transportation of patients over long distances to test offices in hospitals. Poor layout of hospitals, EDs, or test facilities.
Patients
6. Motion of Staff Staff walking over long distances to fetch supplies, and between patients and central hospital stations.
7. Defects Treatment of hospital infections. Failed and repeated tests, repeated paperwork. Surgical cart missing an item. Wrong
medicine.
8. Waste of Human Burnout of medical staff. Frustrated employees quit making suggestions for improvements.
Potential
Table 2 lists the six Lean Principles (Graban 2012) and provides healthcare examples.
Table 2. Six Lean Principles (SEBoK Original)

Principle Explanation
Name
1. Value Specify value from the perspective of the customer: the patient.
2. Value Identify all the value-added steps across the entire process, crossing all departmental boundaries, linking the steps into a seamless
Stream process, and eliminating all steps that do not create value.
3. Flow Keep the processes flowing smoothly through all the steps, eliminating all causes of delay, such as batches of patients or items, and
quality problems.
4. Pull Avoid pushing work onto the next step or department; let work and supplied be pulled, as needed, when needed.
5. Perfection Pursue perfection through continuous improvement, Kaizen events, implement best work standards, checklists, training, and
promote improvement teams and employee suggestions.
6. Respect Create work environment based on synergy of cooperation, teamwork, great communication and coordination. Institute leadership.
People Abandon the culture of blaming and shaming.
Lean Practices
Lean healthcare strongly promotes engaging and leading employees. Lean places a big value on continuous
education and training of employees at all levels. Lean management promotes standardization of best practices (“the
best known way of doing it”, but not necessarily “identical”), checklists, redundancies, patient safety and privacy
rules, and patient data security and cybersecurity. Lean advocates visual management, with electronic or “black”
boards updated in real time and displaying all information important for the local employees to manage their
operation efficiently. Patient safety is still a significant problem in the U.S., in 1999 causing almost 250,000 deaths
(Institute of Medicine, 1999) and medical errors occur in one of three admissions. Instead of “blaming and shaming”
Lean promotes error and harm prevention and deep root-cause analysis, implementing processes and tools that make
it impossible to create an error.
Systems Thinking and Lean

Healthcare is the most complex socio-technological system in our society, consuming nearly 20% of the U.S. GDP.
Healthcare should be safe, effective and evidence based (Berwick 2011), as well as affordable and accessible,
efficient, patient centered, timely, well integrated, and inclusive of latest science. (Oppenheim 2015) Healthcare has
many stakeholders: the patients, medical professionals, medical facilities, hospitals, clinics, labs, medical equipment
makers and users, pharmaceuticals, healthcare researchers and academia, insurances, employers, federal & state
governments and international disease prevention centers, military and veteran’s administration, fire departments and
ambulances and others. The number of potential interactions (interfaces) in this hyper-system is extensive, and many
interfaces are nonlinear, “wicked” (interacting with unpredictable humans), often creating unintended consequences
and emergent behaviors. Because of these vast complexities, healthcare leaders (e.g. Kanter 2015) point out the need
for intensive application of systems thinking and Lean when addressing these challenges. Attempting to solve the
complex healthcare problems without systems thinking risks myopic and unsafe attempts which create more
problems than they solve. Attempting to solve the challenges without Lean inevitably promotes excessive wastes,
costs, and inefficiencies. Good healthcare needs both, Systems Thinking and Lean, to be applied simultaneously.
Lean and Agile in Six Healthcare Value Streams

The Healthcare Working Group of INCOSE identified six following value streams for HSE: A. Systems Engineering
for medical devices B. Systems Engineering for healthcare informatics and medical records C. Healthcare delivery
(operations) D. Biomedicine and big data analytics E. Pharmaceutical value streams F. Healthcare public policy
As described above, Lean is extraordinarily effective and well established in improving healthcare delivery
operations (C). Agile is highly effective in (B) because this value stream works with software, the domain from
which Agile originated. Since the stream (A) is the most similar to traditional systems engineering, Agile is expected
to be effective therein, although Agile is not yet highly popular in healthcare outside of the software domain.
Elements of Lean improvements which are localized and weakly convoluted (e.g., Kaizen events) have strong
overlap with Agile/Scrum methodology. (Medinilla 2014)
MBSE and Lean

A highly powerful Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is clearly the tool of choice for those applications
where the benefit from multiple use of a standardized (reference) architecture and standard model compensates for
the significant effort of creating such a model or architecture. (OMG 2016) In healthcare the value streams (A), (B),
(E) and potentially F are the most conducive to the application of MBSE. Lean thinking is applicable to any
healthcare operation without limitation. The Lean improvements always begin with the so-called Gemba waste
walks, during which experts together with local process stakeholders walk along all the process steps, interviewing
stakeholders and identifying and measuring the wastes wherever they occur. The rich menu of Lean thinking
processes and tools is then applied to eliminate the wastes. Training and active participation of local stakeholders is
always required.
Examples of Lean Improvements

1. In Jefferson Healthcare, WA: (Murman 2010)
• In Acute Myocardial Infarction (a severe heart attack) time is critical as the greatest loss of heart muscle is in
the first two hours. Recommended treatment is catheter insertion of balloon within 90 min of the contact with
the patient (wherever the patient happens to be located). The Lean approach has reduced the treatment time
from 165 min to 20-60 min at the patient site, vastly increasing patient survival rate.
• The five Jefferson Healthcare clinics increased the cumulative available clinic hours from 1400 to 5600 in two
years of Lean improvements which were focused on reorganizing medical staff schedules and eliminating
wasted times, with no staff additions. The available clinic hours directly translate into billable visits: 1175
additional patients have been seen in 2009 compared to 2008 across the five clinics.
• The Operating Room daily “on time start” of actual operations went from 14% to 96% using Lean tools for
process planning and workplace organization.
• Harder to measure is the culture change, although the staff participation at Lean improvement events was at
50%.
2. In Kaiser Permanente Southern California: (Oppenheim 2015)
• In nine regional clinical laboratories Lean improvements cut the turnaround time for laboratory results by
between 30 and 70%, with significant corresponding reductions of cost, rework, errors and work morale, and
without hiring new staff or adding equipment.
• In two Emergency Departments (ED) the average patient length of stay was reduced by 40% by the elimination
of various idle states. The ED capacity increased accordingly.
• The amount and cost of inventory of supplies on hand was reduced by nearly 30% by introducing the
Just-in-Time tools of Lean.
3. In Alegent Health, NE (Graban 2012) the turnaround time for clinical laboratory results was reduced by 60% in
2004 without adding new staff or equipment; and by another 33% from 2008 to 2010.
4. In Kingston General Hospital, Ontario (Oehmen) the instrument decontamination and sterilization cycle time was
reduced by 54% while improving productivity by 16%.
5. In Allegheny Hospital, PA the central-line associated bloodstream infections were reduced by 76%, reducing
patient death from such infections by 95% and saving $1 million.
6. In UPMC St. Margaret Hospital, PA (Graban 2012) the readmission rates for chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD) patients were reduced by 48%.
7. In ThedaCare, WI [3] the waiting time for orthopedic surgery was reduced from 14 weeks to 31 hours (from first
call to surgery); improved inpatient satisfaction scores of “very satisfied” rose from 68% to 90%.
8. In Avera McKennan, SD [3] the patient length of stay was reduced by 29%, and $1.25 million in new ED
construction was avoided.
9. In Denver Health, CO [3] the bottom-line Lean benefit was increased by $54 million through cost reduction and
revenue growth, and layoffs were avoided.
10. In Seattle Children’s Hospital, WA $180 million in capital spending was avoided through Lean improvements.
These examples demonstrate that Lean is successful in cost and throughput time reductions, and improvements in
quality and patient and staff satisfaction. The improvements of this level are possible, even routine – because the
amount of initially-invisible waste in traditional healthcare organizations is so high. The broad range of operations
described in the examples manifest that Lean is applicable across the board to healthcare operations, without
limitations.
Education in Lean Healthcare

Increasingly, Lean Healthcare becomes an inherent part of Healthcare Systems Engineering (HSE) Master’s
Programs, e.g. (Loyola Marymount University 2016) which has been developed in collaboration with Kaiser
Permanente. The program includes two courses in Lean, basic and advanced, focused on improving operations in
clinics, hospitals, emergency departments, clinical laboratories, radiology testing, operating rooms, pharmacies,
supply chain, and healthcare administration. After the basic courses in systems engineering, project management,
and systems thinking, the students also take courses on healthcare system architecting, modeling and simulations;
medical data mining and analytics; systems engineering for medical devices, healthcare enterprise informatics; and
healthcare delivery systems. All these advanced courses contain elements of Lean thinking because all these
subdomains risk being burdened with waste and poor quality if Lean is ignored. Simply put, Lean is not really an
optional extra if you want to achieve efficiency and effectiveness.
References
Works Cited
B.W. Oppenheim, B.W. 2015. “Lean Healthcare,” INCOSE Healthcare Working Group webinar. San Diego, CA:
International Council on Systems Engineering. April 30, 2015. Available at: https:/ / onedrive. live. com/
redir?resid=147E5C4249DA0EFB%21142
Berwick, D. 2009, “National Forum Keynote, Institute for Healthcare Improvement.” Cambridge, MA: Institute for
Healthcare Improvement. Available at: http:/ / www. ihi. org/ IHI/ Programs/ AudioAndWebPrograms/
BerwickForumKeynote2009.htm (accessed July 4, 2011)
Graban, M. 2012. Lean Hospitals; Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Engagement. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Kanter, M.K. 2015. “Strategic Partnership of Healthcare and Systems Engineering.” San Diego: INCOSE Healthcare
Working Group presentation, 2015
Loyola Marymount University. 2016. “MS Degree Program in Healthcare Systems Engineering.” Available at:
CSE.lmu.edu/graduateprograms/systemsengineering/healthcaresystemsengineeringms/
Medinilla, Á. 2014. ‘’Agile Kaizen: Managing Continuous Improvement Far Beyond Retrospectives.’’ New York,
NY: Springer, 2014
Murman, E. 2010 “The Lean Aerospace Initiative.” Boston MA: Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI) Annual
Conference.
Oehmen, J. 2012. The Guide to Lean Enablers for Managing Engineering Programs. PMI-INCOSE-LAI MIT. May
2012.
OMG. 2016. “MBSE Wiki.” Available at: http:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ doku. php (last accessed March 29,
2016)
Oppenheim, B.W. 2011. Lean for Systems Engineering with Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley Series in Systems Engineering and Management.
Porter, M. 2010. “What is Value in Healthcare?” New England Journal of Medicine. 363: 2488-2481. 08 December
2010.
Toussaint, J. and R. Gerard. 2010. On the Mend: Revolutionizing Healthcare to Save Lives and Transform the
Industry. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute. 06 June 2010.
Womack, J.P. and D. T. Jones. 2003. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation.
Washington, DC: Free Press.
Primary References
None.
None.

765
Enabling Systems Engineering

Lead Authors: Art Pyster, Hillary Sillitto, Alice Squires, Contributing Authors: Dick Fairley, Bud Lawson, Dave
Olwell, Deva Henry, Rick Adcock
Part 5 of the Guide to the SE Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) is a guide to knowledge about how an enterprise
prepares and positions itself to effectively perform the systems engineering (SE) activities described elsewhere in the
SEBoK.
SE activities — how to develop requirements, select an appropriate life cycle model, and architect a system of
systems, and so on — are covered elsewhere, especially in Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management. An
organization that desires to do these things effectively must work through questions like whether to allow a project
manager to select the systems engineers he or she employs, and, if so, what competencies the project manager might
seek in those systems engineers. These are the kinds of questions that Part 5 explores.
The discussion defines three levels of organization: enterprise or organization, team, and individual. To adapt an
example to a more complex organizational structure, simply decompose enterprises into sub-enterprises and teams
into sub-teams, as needed. For more about the different types of enterprises, see Types of Systems in Part 2.

Each part of the SEBoK is composed of knowledge areas (KA). Each KA groups topics around a theme related to the
overall subject of the part.
The KAs in Part 5 explore how to the performance of systems engineering from three different lenses:
• Enabling Businesses and Enterprises
• Enabling Teams
• Enabling Individuals
Common Practices
There are as many different ways to enable SE performance as there are organizations, and every organization's
approach is detailed and unique. Nevertheless, common practices, methods, and considerations do exist. Part 5 uses
them as a framework to structure the relevant knowledge.
SE activities that support business needs and deliver value are enabled by many factors, including:
• Culture (see Culture),
• SE competencies (see Determining Needed Systems Engineering Capabilities in Businesses and Enterprises) and
how the organization grows and deploys its workforce to acquire them, and
• SE tooling and infrastructure (see Systems Engineering and Management in Part 3).
Enterprises and Businesses

The fact that Part 5 uses two terms, “Enterprise” and “Business,” to name a single level of organization, indicates that
the two are closely related. In many contexts it is not necessary to make any distinction between them: an enterprise
may be a traditional business, and a business can be seen as a special type of enterprise. For the sake of brevity, the
more general term "organization" may be used to mean “business or enterprise” throughout Part 5.
Traditional businesses usually have a legal structure and a relatively centralized control structure. Such a business
may be a corporation, or a unit of a company or government agency, that creates a product line or offers services.
On the other hand, an enterprise can be structured in a way that excludes description as a business. This happens
when an enterprise crosses traditional business boundaries, lacks a centralized legal authority, and has relatively
loose governance. One example is the healthcare "system" in the US which encompasses hospitals, insurance
companies, medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and government regulators. Another is the
set of companies that form the supply chain for a manufacturer, such as the thousands of companies whose parts and
services Apple uses to create, distribute, and support the iPhone.
Significant actions that enable SE are often conducted by traditional businesses rather than by less tightly structured
enterprises. Even so, organizational context affects how the business approaches SE and therefore how it enables SE
performance. A business that sells to the general commercial marketplace typically has far fewer constraints on its
SE practices than one which performs contract work for a government agency. A business that creates systems with
very demanding characteristics, such as aircraft, typically has a much more rigorous and planned approach to SE
than one which creates less demanding systems, such as a smartphone app.
Traditional businesses are intended to be permanent, and typically offer a portfolio of products and services,
introduce new ones, retire old ones, and otherwise seek to grow the value of the business. Sometimes a single
product or service has such value and longevity that it spawns a business or enterprise just for its creation,
maintenance, and support. The Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, for example, was developed by a consortium of three
corporations that formed a holding company specifically to provide support and upgrade services throughout the
in-service life of the aircraft.
For more on the distinction between businesses and enterprises and the value of systems engineering of enterprises to
them, see Enterprise Systems Engineering in Part 4. Systems of Systems (SoS), also in Part 4, contrasts the tighter
control over SE that is usual for businesses with the looser control that is usual for enterprises lacking a traditional
business structure. Groupings of Systems in Part 2 discusses the Directed SoS to which the traditional business may
be equivalent.
Teams
Teams operate within the context of the businesses in which they reside. This context determines how the team is
enabled to perform SE.
For example, a business may grant a team wide autonomy on key technical decisions, which are made either by team
systems engineers or in consultation with team systems engineers. On the other hand, the same business could
instead create a generic set of SE processes that all teams are to tailor and use, constraining the team to adhere to
established business policies, practices, and culture. The business could even require that the team gain approval for
its tailored SE process from a higher-level technical authority.
Teams are usually formed for a limited duration to accomplish a specific purpose, such as creating a new system or
upgrading an existing service or product. Once the purpose has been fulfilled, the team responsible for that effort is
usually disbanded and the individuals associated with the effort are assigned to new tasks. Exceptions do happen,
however. For example, a team of systems engineers tasked with assisting troubled programs throughout a
corporation could persist indefinitely.
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
None.
None.

768
Knowledge Area: Enabling Businesses and

Enterprises
Enabling Businesses and Enterprises

Lead Authors: Art Pyster, Deva Henry, Dave Olwell
Part 5 on Enabling Systems Engineering explores how systems engineering (SE) is enabled at three levels of an
organization: the business or enterprise (hereafter usually just called "business" --- See Enabling Systems
Engineering for more information), the team, and individuals.
The Enabling Businesses and Enterprises Knowledge Area describes the knowledge needed to enable SE at the
top level of the organization. Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management, describes how to perform SE once it has
been enabled using the techniques described in Part 5. Moreover, a business is itself a system and can benefit from
being viewed that way. (See Enterprise Systems Engineering in Part 4.)
Topics
theme. The Kas, in turn, are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
• Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy
• Determining Needed Systems Engineering Capabilities in Businesses and Enterprises
• Organizing Business and Enterprises to Perform Systems Engineering
• Assessing Systems Engineering Performance of Business and Enterprises
• Developing Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises
• Culture
Relationship Among Topics

• Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy describes how SE delivers value to the business, who makes
decisions about SE in the business, how those decisions are made, how resources are allocated, and how the
soundness and performance of those decisions are monitored.
• Determining Needed Systems Engineering Capabilities in Businesses and Enterprises describes how a business
decides what specific SE capabilities are needed; e.g., a business that creates cutting edge products would likely
require very strong architecting capabilities, including modeling tools. A business that has a global development
team would likely need a very robust collaboration toolset.
• Organizing Business and Enterprises to Perform Systems Engineering describes various organizational models;
e.g., which SE functions should be centralized, which should be distributed, how much SE every engineer should
know.
• Assessing Systems Engineering Performance of Business and Enterprises describes how a business understands
how well it is doing with respect to the SE actually being performed using the techniques described in Systems
Engineering and Management.
• Developing Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises describes how SE talent that
delivers the desired SE capabilities is grown and acquired
• Finally, Culture describes how the culture of a business affects SE; e.g., a risk-averse business will likely use
plan-driven SE processes; an entrepreneurial, fast-paced business will likely use agile SE processes (See Life
Cycle Models).
To some extent, these topics have the character of a "plan-do-check-act" cycle, where the "do" part of the cycle is
performing SE using the techniques described in Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management (Deming Part 3). For
example, if assessing the business' SE performance shows shortfalls, then additional SE capabilities may need to be
developed, the organization may need to be adjusted, processes may need to be improved, etc., all working within
the existing cultural norms. If those norms prevent the business from successfully performing SE, then
transformational efforts to change the culture may be needed as well.
References
Works Cited
Deming, W.E. 1994. The New Economics. Cambridge, MA, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Centre for
Advanced Educational Services.
Primary References
Eisner, H. 2008. Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wiley and Sons.
Elliott, C. et al. 2007. Creating Systems That Work – Principles of Engineering Systems for the 21st Century.
London, UK: Royal Academy of Engineering. Accessed September 2, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. raeng. org.
uk/education/vps/pdf/RAE_Systems_Report.pdf.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. London, UK: Sage.
UK.
Morgan, J. and J. Liker. 2006. The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People, Process and
Technology. New York, NY, USA: Productivity Press.
Rouse, W. 2006. Enterprise Transformation: Understanding and Enabling Fundamental Change. Hoboken, NJ,
USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Senge, P. M. 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 2nd ed. New York,
NY, USA: Currency Doubleday.
Shenhar, A.J. and D. Dvir. 2007. Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth
and Innovation. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
15288:2015.

Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy

Lead Authors: Alice Squires, Dick Fairley, Hillary Sillitto, Contributing Authors: Art Pyster, Alan Faisandier,
Deva Henry, Rick Adcock
Virtually every significant business or enterprise that creates products or services benefits from performing a wide
variety of systems engineering (SE) activities to increase the value that those products and services deliver to its
owners, customers, employees, regulators, and other stakeholders. (See Stakeholder Needs and Requirements.)
A business is a specific type of enterprise, usually a legal entity with a management structure that allows for
relatively tight control of its components, including how it enables SE. The term business is often used in this article
in lieu of enterprise because specific actions to enable SE are typically done by businesses. This is discussed further
in the parent article Enabling Systems Engineering. The strategy for organizing to conduct SE activities is important
to their effectiveness. For example, every enterprise has a purpose, context, and scope determined by some of its
stakeholders and modified over time to increase the value the enterprise offers to them.
Some enterprises are for-profit businesses. Others are not-for-profit businesses that work for the public good. Still
others are non-traditional businesses, but more loosely structured entities without legal structure, such as a national
healthcare system. Some enterprises are located at a single site, while some others are far-flung global "empires".
Some work in highly regulated industries such as medical equipment, while others work with little government
oversight and can follow a much wider range of business practices. All these variations shape the strategy for
performing SE.
Primary Considerations
SE organizational strategy is driven by the goals of the business and the resources and constraints available to
achieve those goals. SE strategy in particular is influenced by several considerations:
• The purpose of the business
• The value the business offers its stakeholders; e.g., profits, public safety, entertainment, or convenience
• The characteristics of the system which the SE activities support; e.g., the size, complexity, primary design
factors, major components, required products, critical specialties, or areas of life cycle
• The phases of the life cycle in which the SE activities are being performed; e.g., development, deployment,
operations, or maintenance of a product or service
• The scale of the business, the systems and services of interest; e.g., is it a single site company or a global venture?
Is the business creating a relatively modest product for internal use, such as a new Web application to track
employee training, or a new hybrid automobile complete with concerns for engineering, manufacturing, servicing,
and distribution?
• The culture of the business in which the SE activities are performed; e.g., is the business risk-averse? Do people
normally collaborate or work in isolated organizations?
• The business structure and how well the current structure aligns with what is needed to create new products and
services; e.g., does the structure of the business align with the architecture of its major products and services?
• The degree of change or transformation that the business is undertaking in its operation, products, and markets
Rouse (2006) offers a thorough look at enterprise strategy, especially as it relates to delivering value to the enterprise
in various phases of the life cycle, beginning with research and development through operations. Rouse provides a
number of techniques to determine and improve the value offered to enterprises using SE methods, especially useful
when an enterprise is undergoing significant transformation rather than conducting "business as usual"; e.g., the
enterprise could be trying to:
• do current business better (drive down costs or improve quality of its current products and services);
• cope with a disruption in the market, a competitive threat, or changing customer expectations and ways of doing
business;
• reposition itself in its value chain (move from being a part supplier to a subassembly supplier); or
• launch a new generation product or enter a new market.
Eisner (2008) provides a thorough look at different SE organizational approaches.
Systems Engineering Strategy Elements

Based on the primary considerations, the SE strategy generally addresses the following:
• How SE activities provide value to the business (See Economic Value of Systems Engineering)
• How SE activities are allocated among the various business entities (See Organizing Business and Enterprises to
Perform Systems Engineering)
• What competencies are expected from the parts of the business in order to perform these SE activities (See
Deciding on Desired Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises)
• How parts of the business gain and improve competencies (See Developing Systems Engineering Capabilities
within Businesses and Enterprises)
• Who performs SE activities within each part of the business (See Team Capability)
• How people who perform SE activities interact with others in the business ((See Part 6: Related Disciplines)
• How SE activities enable the business to address transformation (See Enterprise Systems Engineering).
Depending on the business' approach to SE, there may not be a single coherent SE strategy common across the
business. Different business units may have their own SE strategies, or development of a strategy may be delegated
to individual projects. The SE strategy may not even be explicitly documented or may only be found in multiple
documents across the business. Some businesses publish guidebooks and policies that describe their organizational
strategy. These are usually proprietary unless the business is a government or quasi-government agency. Two public
documents are NASA (2007) and MITRE (2012). The latter has a number of short articles on different topics
including an article on Stakeholder Assessment and Management and another on Formulation of Organizational
Transformation Strategies.
Product and Service Development Models

There are three basic product and service development models that most businesses employ:
1. Market-driven commercial
2. Product-line
3. Contract
The biggest differences between the three business models are where requirements risks lie and how user needs and
usage are fed into the design and delivery process. SE support to the business varies in each case.
Market-driven commercial products and services are sold to many customers and are typically developed by
organizations at their own risk. The requirements come from marketing based on understanding the market, relevant
regulation and legislation, and good ideas from within the organization (Pugh 1991, Smith and Reinertsen 1997).
Sillitto (1999) contends that market-driven commercial product development is a form of systems engineering with
adapted techniques for requirements elicitation and validation.
Product-line products and services are variants of the same product and service, usually customized for each
customer. Extra investment is required to create the underlying product platform. Architecting such a platform in a
way that supports cost-effective customization is usually more complex both technically and organizationally than
market-driven commercial products and services.
Systems engineers typically play a central role in establishing the platform architecture, understanding the
implications of platform choices on manufacturing and service, etc. There are a number of examples of good
practices in product-line products and services; e.g., automobile models from virtually all major manufacturers such
as Toyota, General Motors, and Hyundai; Boeing and Airbus aircraft such as the B-737 family and the Airbus 320
family; and Nokia and Motorola cellphones. The Software Engineering Institute has done extensive research on
product lines for software systems and has developed a framework for constructing and analyzing them (Northrop et
al. 2007). For a reference on product line principles and methods, see Simpson (et al. 2006).
Contract products and services often demand tailor-made system/service solutions which are typically specified by
a single customer to whom the solution is provided. The supplier responds with proposed solutions. This style of
development is common in defense, space, transport, energy, and civil infrastructure. Customers that acquire many
systems often have a specific procurement organization with precise rules and controls on the acquisition process,
and mandated technical and process standards. The supplier typically has much less flexibility in SE process, tools,
and practices in this model than the other two.
Any single business or enterprise is likely to apply some combination of these three models with varying importance
given to one or more of them.
Organizations That Use and Provide SE

There are five basic types of organizations that use SE or provide SE services:
1. A business with multiple project teams
2. A project that spans multiple businesses
3. An SE team within either of the above
4. A business with a single project team
5. An SE service supplier that offers a specific SE capability or service (tools, training, lifecycle process) to multiple
clients, either as an external consultancy or as an internal SE function
The kind of business determines the scope and diversity of SE across the organization. This is shown in abstract
form in Figure 1, which illustrates the fundamental form of an extended enterprise. This also shows how
organizational structure tends to match system structure.
Figure 1. Organization Coupling Diagram. (SEBoK Original (Adapted from Lawson 2010))
The problem owners are the people, communities, or organizations involved in and affected by the problem
situation. They may be seeking to defend a country, to improve transportation links in a community, or to deal with
an environmental challenge. The respondent system might be a new fighter aircraft, a new or improved
transportation infrastructure, or a new low-emission electricity generation systems (respectively). The organizations
responsible for the respondent systems would be the Air Force, transport operator or regulator, or electricity supply
company. The prime role of these organizations would be to operate the systems of interest to deliver value to the
problem owners. They might reasonably be expected to manage the entire system lifecycle.
This same concept is expanded in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Systems Enterprises and Organizations. (SEBoK Original)
Goals, Measures, and Alignment in a Business

The alignment of goals and measures within the business strongly affects the effectiveness of SE and the benefit
delivered by SE to the business, and needs to be carefully understood:
• Blockley and Godfrey (2000) describe techniques used successfully to deliver a major infrastructure contract on
time and within budget, in an industry normally plagued by adversarial behavior.
• Lean thinking provides a powerful technique for aligning purpose to customer value – provided the enterprise
boundary is chosen correctly and considers the whole value stream (Womack and Jones 2003; Oppenheim et al.
2010).
• Fasser and Brettner (2002, 18-19) see an organization as a system, and advocate three principles for
organizational design: (1) increasing value for the ultimate customer, (2) strict discipline, and (3) simplicity.
• EIA 632 (ANSI/EIA 2003) advocates managing all the aspects required for the life cycle success of each element
of the system as an integrated “building block”. Similarly, Blockley (2010) suggests that taking a holistic view of
“a system as a process” allows a more coherent and more successful approach to organization and system design,
considering each element both as part of a bigger system-of-interest and as a “whole system” (a “holon”) in its own
right.
• Elliott et al. (2007) advocate six guiding principles for making systems that work: (1) debate, define, revise and
pursue the purpose, (2) think holistically, (3) follow a systematic procedure, (4) be creative, (5) take account of
the people, and (6) manage the project and the relationships.
• For organizations new to SE, the INCOSE UK Chapter has published a range of one-page guides on the subject,
including Farncombe and Woodcock (2009a; 2009b).
Governance
SE governance is the process and practice through which a business puts in place the decision rights that enable SE
to deliver as much business value as possible. Those rights may be codified in policy, implemented through the
business structure, enforced through tools, and understood through measures of compliance and effectiveness.
SE governance in large businesses is often explicit and codified in policy. In small businesses, it is often tacit and
simply understood in how the business works. One of the key implementation steps when a business defines its SE
strategy is to establish its SE governance model, which should be tailored to the particular context in which the
business operates and delivers value. Of course, in practice, this is often incremental, uneven and subject to wide
swings based on the current state of the business and the people occupying key management positions.
The term governance for development organizations was first popularized in reference to how Information
Technology (IT) is overseen in businesses and enterprises (Weill and Ross 2006; Cantor and Sanders 2007). The
recognition in the 1990s and the last decade that IT is a fundamental driver of performance and value for most
corporations and government agencies led to the transformation of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) into a key
senior manager.
Explicit governance of IT became important to enabling an enterprise to respond to new technology opportunities,
emerging markets, new threats, and rapid delivery of new products and services. The term "governance" is now
widely used to describe how SE is woven into an enterprise. Governance becomes especially challenging for
complex projects in which there are high levels of uncertainty (Cantor 2006) or for system of systems projects in
which responsibility for major decisions may be distributed over multiple organizations within an enterprise in which
there is no single individual who is "in control" (see Systems of Systems (SoS)). Morgan and Liker (2006) describe
the governance model for Toyota, which is one of the largest companies in the world.
SE governance establishes the framework and responsibility for managing issues such as design authority, funding
and approvals, project initiation and termination, as well as the legal and regulatory framework in which the system
will be developed and will operate. Governance includes the rationale and rules for why and how the enterprise
policies, processes, methods and tools are tailored to the context. SE governance may also specify product and
process measures, documentation standards, and technical reviews and audits.
The ways in which a team organizes to conduct SE activities either conform to policies established at the level above
or are captured in that team’s own governance policies, processes, and practices. These policies cover the
organizational context and goals, the responsibilities for governance, process, practices and product at the level of
interest, and the freedom delegated to and governance and reporting obligations imposed on lower organizational
levels. It is good practice to capture the assignment of people and their roles and responsibilities in the form of the
Responsible, Accountable, Consult, Inform (RACI) matrix (PMI 2013) or something similar. Responsibility in large
organizations can easily become diffused. Sommerville et al. (2009, 515-529) discuss the relationship between
information and responsibility, and describe methods to analyze and model responsibility in complex organizations.
Small organizations tend to have relatively informal governance documentation and processes, while larger
organizations tend towards more structure and rigor in their governance approach. Government organizations
responsible for developing or acquiring large complex systems, such as the US Department of Defense or the US
Federal Aviation Administration, usually develop policies that describe governance of their SE activities and SE
organizations. See DoD (2012) for the Department of Defense SE policies.
Government contracting typically brings additional regulation and oversight, driving a group to greater rigor,
documentation, and specific practices in their SE governance. Development of systems or operating services that
affect public safety or security is subject to constraints similar to those seen in government contracting. Think of the
creation of medical devices or the operation of emergency response systems, air traffic management, or the nuclear
industry. (See Jackson (2010) for example).
Governance models vary widely. For example, Linux, the greatest success of the open source community, has a
governance model that is dramatically different than those of traditional businesses. Smith (2009) offers a cogent
explanation of how decisions are made on what goes into the Linux kernel. All of the decision rights are completely
transparent, posted on the Linux website, and have proven remarkably effective as they have evolved. The classic
paper The Cathedral and The Bazaar by Eric Raymond (2000) provides great insight into the evolution of Linux
governance and how Linus Torvalds responded to changing context and circumstances to keep Linux so successful
in the marketplace with a governance model that was radically novel for its time.
The project management literature also contributes to the understanding of SE governance (see Systems Engineering
and Project Management). For example, Shenhar and Dvir (2007) offer the "diamond model" for project
management, which identifies four dimensions that should guide how development projects are managed: novelty,
technology, complexity, and pace. Application of this model to SE governance would influence the available life
cycle models for development projects and how those models are applied.
There are numerous examples of projects that went well or badly based largely on the governance practiced by both
the acquirer and the supplier organizations. Part 7 of the SEBoK has several examples, notably Singapore Water
Management (went well) and FAA Advanced Automation System (AAS) (went less well).
References
Works Cited
Blockley, D. 2010. "The Importance of Being Process." Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems.
27(3).
Blockley, D. and Godfrey, P. 2000. Doing It Differently – Systems for Rethinking Construction. London, UK:
Thomas Telford, Ltd.
Cantor, M. 2006. "Estimation Variance and Governance." In IBM developerWorks. Accessed on April 24, 2013.
Available at Abstract [1].
Cantor, M. and J.D. Sanders. 2007. "Operational IT Governance." In IBM developerWorks. Accessed on September
15, 2011. Available at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/may07/cantor_sanders/.
DoD. 2012. "Systems Engineering Policy". Accessed on August 4, 2012. Available at http:/ / www. acq. osd. mil/ se/
pg/index.html.
Eisner, H. 2008. "Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management", 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Elliott, C. et al. 2007. Creating Systems That Work – Principles of Engineering Systems for the 21st Century.
Fasser, Y. and D. Brettner. 2002. Management for Quality in High-Technology Enterprises. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
John Wiley & Sons-Interscience.
Farncombe, A. and H. Woodcock. 2009a. "Enabling Systems Engineering". Z-2 Guide, Issue 2.0. Somerset, UK:
INCOSE UK Chapter. March, 2009. Accessed September 2, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. incoseonline. org. uk/
Documents/zGuides/Z2_Enabling_SE.pdf.
Farncombe, A. and H. Woodcock. 2009b. "Why Invest in Systems Engineering". Z-3 Guide, Issue 3.0. Somerset,
UK: INCOSE UK Chapter. March 2009. Accessed September 2, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. incoseonline. org.
uk/Documents/zGuides/Z3_Why_invest_in_SE.pdf.
Lawson, H. 2010. "A Journey Through the Systems Landscape". London, UK: College Publications, Kings College,
UK.
MITRE. 2012. "Systems Engineering Guidebook". Accessed on August 4, 2012. Available at http:/ / www. mitre.
org/work/systems_engineering/guide/index.html.
NASA. 2007. "NASA Systems Engineering Handbook". Accessed on April 24, 2013. Available at http:/ / www. acq.
osd.mil/se/docs/NASA-SP-2007-6105-Rev-1-Final-31Dec2007.pdf.Washington, DC, USA: NASA.
Northrop, L., P. Clements, et al. 2007. A Framework for Software Product Line Practice, Version 5.0. With F.
Bachmann, J. Bergey, G. Chastek, S. Cohen, P. Donohoe, L. Jones, R. Krut, R. Little, J. McGregor, and L. O'Brien.
Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute.
Oppenheim, B., E.M. Murman, D.A. Secor. 2010. Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering. Systems Engineering.
14(1): 29-55.
Pugh, S. 1991. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. New York, NY, USA:
Addison-Wesley.
Raymond, E.S. 2000. The Cathedral and The Bazaar, version 3.0. Accessed on April 24, 2013. Available at http:/ /
www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar.ps.
Rouse, W. 2006. "Enterprise Transformation: Understanding and Enabling Fundamental Change." Hoboken, NJ,
Sillitto, H. 1999. “Simple Simon Met A System”. Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 6-10 June, 1999, Brighton, UK.
Simpson, T.W., Z. Siddique, R.J. Jiao (eds.). 2006. Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and
Applications. New York, NY, USA: Springer Science & Business Media, Inc.
Smith, J.T. 2009. "2.4 Kernel: How are Decisions Made on What Goes into The Kernel?" Available at http:/ / www.
linux.com/feature/8090.
Smith, P.G. and D.G. Reinertsen. 1997. Developing Products in Half the Time. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and
Sons.
Sommerville, I., R. Lock, T. Storer, and J.E. Dobson. 2009. "Deriving Information Requirements from
Responsibility Models." Paper presented at 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Systems
Engineering, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Weill, P. and J.W. Ross. 2004. IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior
Results. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Womack, J. and D. Jones. 2003. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation, Revised
Edition. New York, NY, USA: Simon & Schuster.
Primary References
Blockley, D. and Godfrey, P. 2000. Doing It Differently – Systems for Rethinking Construction. London, UK:
Cantor, M. and J.D. Sanders. 2007. "Operational IT Governance." In IBM developerWorks. Accessed on September
15, 2011. Available at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/may07/cantor_sanders/.
Wiley & Sons.
Elliott, C., et al. 2007. Creating Systems That Work – Principles of Engineering Systems for the 21st Century.
UK.
Northrop, L., P. Clements, et al. 2007. A Framework for Software Product Line Practice, version 5.0. With F.
Bachmann, J. Bergey, G. Chastek, S. Cohen, P. Donohoe, L. Jones, R. Krut, R. Little, J. McGregor, and L. O'Brien.
Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute. Accessed on April 25, 2013. Available at http:/ / www. sei.
cmu.edu/productlines/frame_report/index.html.
Rouse, W. 2006. Enterprise Transformation: Understanding and Enabling Fundamental Change. Hoboken, NJ,
Chastek, D., P. Donohoe, and J.D. McGregor. 2009. Formulation of a Production Strategy for a Software Product
Line. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2009-TN-025. Accessed on September 14,
2011. Available at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tn025.pdf.
Sillitto, Mazzella, and Fromenteau. 2001. "The development of Product Lines in THALES: methods, examples,
lessons learnt," Paper presented at the INCOSE UK Spring Conference.

References
[1] http:/ / www. ibm. com/ developerworks/ library/ ?sort_by=& show_abstract=true& show_all=& search_flag=& contentarea_by=All+
Zones& search_by=Estimation+ Variance+ and+ Governance& product_by=-1& topic_by=-1& industry_by=-1& type_by=All+ Types&
ibm-search=Search
Determining Needed Systems Engineering

Capabilities in Businesses and Enterprises
Lead Authors: Richard Beasley, Hillary Sillitto, Scott Jackson, Contributing Authors: Alice Squires, Heidi Davidz,
Garry Roedler, Richard Turner, Art Pyster, Ray Madachy
Enabling a business or enterprise to perform systems engineering (SE) well requires deciding which specific SE
capabilities the business or enterprise needs in order to be successful. (In the rest of this article business or enterprise
is usually abbreviated to just "business", because a business is a specific type of enterprise that has sufficiently
strong central authority and motivation to take steps to enable SE). SE capabilities should support the Systems
Engineering Organizational Strategy and reflect the nature of the business, its products and services, various
stakeholders, business leadership focus, etc.
This topic, which is part of the Enabling Businesses and Enterprises knowledge area (KA) of Part 5, summarizes the
factors used to decide which SE capabilities a business needs; e.g., the interactions between SE and other functional
areas in the business, and consideration of social dynamics and leadership at the team and business levels. Needed
capabilities may be decided and developed centrally by a business, or within teams and by individuals, or through
some combination of the two. Determination of team SE capability is discussed in the article Team Capability, and
individual SE competencies are discussed in the article Roles and Competencies.
Relationship of this Topic to Enterprise Systems Engineering

Enterprise Systems Engineering and Capability Engineering techniques can be used to establish needed SE
capabilities. At a high level of abstraction, the following are basic steps that could be used to decide the desired SE
capabilities within the business:
1. understand the context;
2. determine the required SE roles;
3. determine the competencies and capabilities needed for each of the SE roles;
4. assess the ability and availability of the needed SE organizations, teams, and individuals;
5. adjust the required SE roles based on the actual ability and availability; and
6. organize the SE function to facilitate communication, coordination, and performance.
See the article Organizing Business and Enterprises to Perform Systems Engineering for additional information.
More information on context and required SE roles is provided below.
Contextual Drivers
The following discussion illustrates some of the contextual factors that influence the definition of the SE capability
needed by a business.
Where the SE Activities are Performed in the Value Chain

The SE approach adopted by the business should depend on what role the organization plays. Ring (2002) defines a
value cycle, and where the business sits in that cycle is a key influence of SE capability need.
• Problem owner: focus on identifying and scoping the system problem (defining system-of-interest (SoI))and
understanding the nature of the appropriate respondent system using Enterprise Systems Engineering and
Capability Engineering approaches.
• System operator: focus on establishing all the necessary components of capability to deliver the required
services, as well as on integrating new system assets into the system operation as they become available (see
Service Systems Engineering). The definition of the components of capability varies by organization - e.g.,
• The US Department of Defense defines the components of capability as DOTMLPF: doctrine, organization,
training, materiel, logistics, people, and facilities.
• The UK Ministry of Defense defines the components of capability as TEPIDOIL; i.e., training, equipment,
people, information, doctrine, organization, infrastructure, and logistics.
• Other domains and organizations define the components of capability with similar, equivalent breakdowns
which are either explicit or implicit.
• Prime contractor or primary commercial developer: focus on understanding customer needs and trading
alternative solution approaches, then establishing a system team and supply chain to develop, deliver, support,
and in some cases, operate the system solution. This may require enterprise SE (see Enterprise Systems
Engineering) as well as "traditional" product SE (see Product Systems Engineering).
• Subsystem/component developer: focus on understanding the critical customer and system integrator issues for
the subsystem or component of interest, defining the component or subsystem boundary, and integrating critical
technologies. This may exploit re-usable elements and can be sold in identical or modified forms to several
customers. (In Part 4 of the SEBoK, see Systems of Systems, Enterprise Systems Engineering, and Product
Systems Engineering for more information and references to the literature.)
• Specialist service provider: focus on specific process capabilities and competences which are typically sold on a
time and materials or work package basis to other businesses.
Where the Enterprise Operates in the Lifecycle

The SE capabilities required by the business will depend on the system life cycle phase(s) in which it operates (see
Life Cycle Models in Part 3).
• Concept definition phase: requires the SE capability to identify a “problem situation,” define the context and
potential concept of operations for a solution system, assess the feasibility of a range of possible solutions in
broad terms, and refine the definition to allow the development of system requirements for the solution (see
Concept Definition in Part 3).
• System Definition phase: requires the SE capability to influence concept studies (ensure feasible and understood
by the development team), establish the trade space that remains at the end of the concept study, perform the
system definition activities, including architecture design, and create a detailed definition of the system elements.
• System realization phase: requires the SE capability to configure the manufacturing and logistics systems for the
system assets, and manufacture system assets (see System Realization in Part 3).
• System deployment and use: requires the SE capability to maintain business continuity during the transition to
operation, bring the system into service, support system, monitor system performance, and respond to emerging
needs (see System Deployment and Use). Elliott et al. (2008) describe the different emphases that should be
placed in SE during the "in-service" phase. This phase particularly requires the business to be able to perform SE
at an appropriate operational tempo.
• Retirement phase: requires the SE capability for ensuring the safe retirement of systems and keeping them in a
state ready for re-activation (“mothballed”), safe disposal of the system assets.
Nature of Responsibility to End Users and Society

Depending on the business model and the contracting environment, the business may find that its responsibility to
end users is:
• explicit, or spelled out by clear requirements and prescriptive legislation; or
• implicit; i.e., a legal or ethical obligation to ensure “fitness for purpose” which may be enforced by commercial
frameworks, national or international standards, and specific product liability legislation.
Typically, businesses whose business model is contract driven focus on satisfying explicit requirements, whereas
market-driven businesses must be more aware of implicit responsibilities.
Nature of Responsibility to Customers

The business may contract with its customers to deliver any of the following:
• an outcome: The intended benefits the system is expected to provide, requires enterprise systems engineering;
• an output: Deliver or operate the system or part of it against agreed acceptance criteria; requires product systems
engineering;
• an activity: Perform a specified set of tasks, requires service systems engineering; and
• a resource: Provide a specified resource; requires focus on individual competencies - see Enabling Individuals.
Scale of Systems
The business or enterprise may need very different SE approaches depending on the scale of the system at which the
business operates. The following categories are based on Hitchins’ five layered system model (Hitchins 2005):
• Level 1: Subsystem and technical artifacts – focus on product systems engineering and on technology
integration.
• Level 2: Project systems – focus on product systems engineering with cross-discipline and human integration.
• Level 3: Business systems – focus on enterprise systems engineering , service systems engineering to implement
them, and on service management (Chang 2010) and continuous improvement (SEI 2010b); see also Quality
Management) for the day to day running of the business.
• Level 4: Industry systems – If there is a conscious effort to treat an entire industry as a system, the focus will be
on Enterprise Systems Engineering, and on the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of the
overall industry.
• Level 5: Societal systems – Enterprise systems engineering is used to analyze and attempt to optimize societal
systems (see Singapore Water Management in Part 7).
Sillitto (2011) has proposed extending this model to cover sustainability issues by adding two additional layers, the
“ecosystem” and the “geosystem”.
Complexity of Systems Integration Tasks and Stupples’ levels

Creating Systems That Work – Principles of Engineering Systems for The 21st century identifies three “kinds” of SE,
originally proposed by Stupples (2006), that have to do with the level of cross-disciplinary integration involved
(Elliot et al. 2007).
1. Within a discipline (e.g., software, hardware, optics, or mechanics), the SE focus is on taking a systems view of
the architecture and implementation to manage complexity and scale within a single engineering discipline.
2. In multiple disciplines (e.g., software, hardware, optics, and mechanics), the SE focus is on holistic integration of
multiple technologies and skills to achieve a balanced system solution.
3. In socio-technical systems integration, the SE focus is on getting people and the non-human parts of the system
working synergistically.
Sillitto (2011) proposed extending this model properly to cover sustainability issues by adding one additional level,
“Environmental Integration”. He describes this level and show how the Stupples’ levels relate to other dimensions
used to categorize systems and professional engineering skills.
Criticality of System and Certification Requirements

The level of rigor in the SE approach adopted by the business will depend on the criticality of various classes of
requirement. (See Systems Engineering and Specialty Engineering.)
• Safety and security requirements often demand specific auditable processes and proof of staff competence.
• Ethical and environmental requirements may require an audit of the whole supply and value chain.
• Extremely demanding combinations of performance requirements will require more design iteration and more
critical control of component characteristics; e.g., see Quality Management and Management for Quality in
High-Technology Enterprises (Fasser and Brettner 2010).
The Nature of a Contract or Agreement

The nature of the contractual relationship between a business and its customers and end users will influence the style
of SE.
• Fixed price, cost plus, or other contracting models influence the mix of focus on performance and cost control and
how the business is incentivized to handle risk and opportunity.
• In mandated work share arrangements, the architecture of the product system may be compromised or constrained
by the architecture of a viable business system; this is often the case in multi-national projects and high-profile
government procurements (Maier and Rechtin 2009, 361-373).
• In self-funded approaches, the priorities will be requirements elicitation approaches designed to discover the
latent needs of consumers and business customers, as well as development approaches designed to achieve rapid
time to market with a competitive offering, or to have a competitive offering of sufficient maturity available at the
most critical time during a customer’s selection process.
• In single phase or whole-life approaches, the business may be able to optimize trade-offs across the development,
implementation, and in-service budgets, and between the different components of capability.
The Nature and Predictability of Problem Domain(s)

Well-defined and slowly changing technologies, products, and services permit the use of traditional SE life cycle
models based on the waterfall model because the requirements risk and change is expected to be low (see Life Cycle
Models).
Poorly defined and rapidly changing problem domains, with operators subject to unpredictable and evolving threats,
demand more flexible solutions and agile processes. SE should focus on modular architectures that allow rapid
reconfiguration of systems and systems-of-systems, as well as rapid deployment of new technologies at a subsystem
level to meet new demands and threats.
Fundamental Risks and Design Drivers in the Solution Domain

When the solution domain is stable, with a low rate of technology evolution, and systems use mature technology, the
focus is on optimum packaging and configuration of known and usually well-proven building blocks within known
reference architectures, and on low-risk incremental improvement over time.
When there is rapid technology evolution, with pressure to bring new technologies rapidly to market and/or into
operational use, the SE approach has to focus on technology maturation, proof of technology and integration
readiness, and handling the technology risk in the transition from the lab to the proof of concept to the operational
system.
There is usually a trade-off between lead time expectations and the level of integrity/certification. In the
development of new systems, short lead times are seldom compatible with high levels of system integrity and
rigorous certification.
Competitive Situation and Business Goals

The business drivers for SE deployment may be one or more of the following:
• To perform existing business better;
• To recover from a competitive shock or a shift in clients' expectations;
• To develop a new generation product or service;
• To enter a new market; and/or
• To reposition the business or enterprise in the value chain.
In the first case, SE can be deployed incrementally in parts of the business process where early tangible benefits can
be realized. This could be the early steps of a business-wide strategic plan for SE. (See Systems Engineering
Organizational Strategy for more on setting SE strategy and Developing Systems Engineering Capabilities within
Businesses and Enterprises for improving SE capabilities.)
In the other cases, the business is going through disruptive change and the early priority may be to use systems
thinking (see Systems Thinking) and enterprise SE approaches to scope the transformation in the context of a major
change initiative.
Type of System or Service

There are three distinct flavors of products or service types (see Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy):
1. In a product or productized service, the focus will be on predicting how the market might change during the
development period, eliciting, anticipating, and balancing requirements from a variety of potential customers, and
optimizing features and product attractiveness against cost and reliability.
2. In a custom solution (product or service) the focus will be on feasible and low-risk (usually) approaches to meet
the stated requirement within budget, using system elements and technologies that are known or expected to be
available within the desired development timescale.
3. Tailored solutions based on standard product and/or service elements require a much more sophisticated SE
process that is able to use a “product line approach” to blend standard modules with planned adaptation to meet
clients’ specific needs more quickly and cheaply than would be possible with a single contract solution. The
business needs to manage the life cycle and configuration of the standard modules separately from, but coherently
with, the life cycle and configuration of each tailored solution.
Needed Systems Engineering Roles

After understanding the context for the business, the next step is to determine the SE capabilities required in the role
in the business. The SEI Capability Maturity Models for acquisition, development, and services (SEI 2007; SEI
2010a; SEI 2010b) provide a framework for selecting SE capabilities relevant to different types of business. Existing
SE competency models can be used to assist in determining the needed capabilities. An example is the INCOSE SE
Competencies Framework (INCOSE 2010). (See Roles and Competencies for more information on competency
models.)
The spread of SE focus can be a wide spectrum, from SE being focused in a specialist, interface or glue role (Sheard
1996), to the idea that “SE is good engineering with special areas of emphasis… including interfaces between
disciplines” (Blanchard and Fabrycky 2005) and so it is shared by all. In any organization where activities and skills
are shared, there is always a danger of silos or duplication.
As part of the role definition, the business must define where an individual doing SE fits into career progression
(what roles before SE, what after?). Developing Individuals describes how individuals improve SE; the organization
must define the means by which that development can be enacted. Businesses need to customize from a range of
development strategies; see, for example, Davidz and Martin (2011).
As shown in Figure 1 below, management action on workforce development will be required if there are systemic
mismatches between the competencies required to perform SE roles and the actual competencies of individuals. The
organizational culture may have a positive or negative effect on team performance and the overall value added by the
business (see Culture).
Figure 1. Culture, Competence, Team Performance and Individual Competence. (SEBoK Original)
Required SE Processes and Methods

The decisions on how to implement SE capability must be embedded in the businesses processes and its availability
methodologies and toolsets. Embedding SE principles, processes, and methods in the organization’s quality
management system means that senior management and the quality system will help embed SE in the organizational
business process and make sure it is applied (INCOSE 2012; ISO/IEC 2008; see Quality Management).
When defining the processes and tools, a balance between the need for a systematic and standardized approach to SE
processes, such as that seen in INCOSE (2012), with the flexibility inherent in systemic thinking is critical. Systems
thinking helps the organization understand problem situations, remove organizational barriers, and make the most of
the organization’s technical capabilities (see Beasley (2011)).
Need for Clarity in the SE Approach and the Dangers of Implementing SE

Clarity on how the organization performs SE is important. Typically, implementing SE may be part of an
organization’s improvement, so Kotter’s principles on creating a vision, communicating the vision, and empowering
others to act on the vision are extremely relevant (Kotter 1995). The way an organization chooses to perform SE
should be part of the vision of the organization and must be understood and accepted by all.
Many of the major obstacles in SE deployment are cultural (see Culture).
One of the lean enablers for SE is to "pursue perfection" (Oppenheim et al. 2010). The means of improvement at a
business or enterprise level are discussed in detail elsewhere, but the starting point must be deciding what SE
capabilities the organization wants. It needs to be recognized that the needed capabilities change over time (learning,
improving, or losing capability). Thus, balancing SE with everything else that it involves is an ever-changing
process.
References
Works Cited
Beasley, R. 2011. "The Three T's of Systems Engineering." Paper presented at the 21st Annual International Council
on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium. June 2011. Denver, CO, USA.
Blanchard, B. and W. Fabrycky. 2005. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice Hall.
Davidz, H. L. and J. Martin. 2011. "Defining a Strategy for Development of Systems Capability in the Workforce."
Systems Engineering. 14(2) (Summer, 2011): 141-143
Elliott, B. et al. 2008. INCOSE UK Chapter Working Group on Applying Systems Engineering to In-Service Systems,
Final Report. Somerset, UK: INCOSE UK Chapter Working Group. Accessed September 6, 2011. Available at http:/
/www.incoseonline.org.uk/Documents/Groups/InServiceSystems/is_tr_001_final_report_final_1_0.pdf.
Fasser, Y. and D. Brettner. 2001. Management for Quality in High-Technology Enterprises. New York, NY, USA:
Wiley.
Hitchins, D. 2005. Systems Engineering 5 Layer Model. Accessed on April 24, 2013. Available at http:/ / www.
hitchins.net/systems/world-class-systems-enginee.html.
INCOSE. 2010. SE Competencies Framework, Issue 3. Somerset, UK: International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE Technical Product 2010-0205.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
15288:2008.
Kotter, J. 1995. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business Review
(March–April 1995).
Maier, M. and E. Rechtin. 2009. The Art of System Architecting, Third Edition. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Oppenheim et al. 2010. Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Ring J. 2002. Toward an Ontology of Systems Engineering. INSIGHT, 5(1): 19-22.
SEI. 2007. CMMI for Acquisition. Version 1.2. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2007-TR-017. Pittsburgh, PA, USA:
Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
SEI. 2010a. Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for Development. Version 1.3. Pittsburgh, PA, USA:
SEI. 2010b. CMMI for Services. Version 1.3. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2010-TR-034. Pittsburgh, PA, USA:
Sheard, S. 1996. "12 Systems Engineering Roles." Paper presented at the 6th Annual International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium. Boston, MA, USA. Accessed September 14, 2011.
Sillitto, H. 2011. "Unravelling Systems Engineers from Systems Engineering - Frameworks for Understanding the
Extent, Variety and Ambiguity of Systems Engineering and Systems Engineers." Paper presented at the 21st Annual
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium. 20-23 June 2011. Denver, CO,
USA.
Stupples, D. 2006. "Systems Engineering – a road from perdition." Published on Royal Academy of Engineering
website. Available at http://www.raeng.org.uk/education/vps/systemdesign/pdf/David_Stupples.pdf
Primary References
Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology. Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Oppenheim, B. 2011. Lean for Systems Engineering - with Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering. Hoboken, NJ,
USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Sheard, S. 1996. Twelve Systems Engineering Roles. Paper presented at the 6th Annual International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium. Boston, MA, USA. Accessed September 14, 2011.
Rhodes, D., and G. Roedler (eds.). 2007. Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide, version 1.0. San Diego,
CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE-TP-2005-001-02.

Organizing Business and Enterprises to Perform

Systems Engineering
Lead Authors: Richard Beasley, Art Pyster, Hillary Sillitto, Contributing Authors: Alice Squires, Heidi Davidz,
Scott Jackson, Quong Wang
In order for a business or enterprise to perform systems engineering (SE) well, the team must decide which specific
SE capabilities the business or enterprise needs in order to be successful and then organizing to deliver those
capabilities. (In the rest of this article, business or enterprise is usually abbreviated to just "business", because a
business is a specific type of enterprise that has sufficiently strong central authority and motivation to take steps to
enable SE).
SE capabilities and organizational approach should support the Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy and
reflect the nature of the business, its products and services, various stakeholders, business leadership focus, etc. This
topic, which is part of Part 5, Enabling Businesses and Enterprises, summarizes the factors used to organize a
business to perform SE.
Components of Business and Enterprise SE Capability
Organization Issues - Culture, Knowledge, Information, and Infrastructure

The way SE is managed is described in Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy, which both impacts and
responds to the SE culture and approach.
Knowledge and Information

Knowledge and Information are key assets in a business, and their management is critical. Fasser and Brettner (2002)
discuss knowledge management extensively. They assert that “We may think that knowledge transfer is just an
information technology issue, but in actuality, it is also a psychological, cultural, and managerial issue – in short a
human issue” and “Only information in action can create knowledge”.
Organizations need to manage SE know-how, integration of SE with other organizational processes and activities,
and knowledge of their business domain. The INCOSE Intelligent Enterprise Working Group's work on knowledge
management in an SE context led to the publication of a “Concept of Operations for a Systems Engineering
Educational Community” (Ring et al. 2004).
Information has to be both shared and protected in complex organizations. Sharing is key to effective collaboration
and is constrained by the need to protect intellectual property, as well as commercially and nationally sensitive
material. Different cultures and personal styles use information in different ways and in different orders. (Levels of
abstraction, big picture first or detail, principles first or practical examples, etc.) Sillitto (2011b) describes the
knowledge management challenges for large, multi-national organizations.
Projects need to manage project information and establish configuration control over formal contractual information,
as well as the information that defines the product/service being developed, supplied, or operated. A key role of
systems engineers is to “language the project” (Ring et al. 2004). Good data management and tool support will allow
people to document once, use many times, and ensures consistency of information over time and between different
teams.
System information needs to be maintained throughout the life of the system and made available to relevant
stakeholders – including those designing new systems that must interface to the system-of-interest - to allow system
management, maintenance, reconfiguration, upgrade and disposal, and forensics after accidents and near-misses.
Elliott et al. (2008) suggest that information management is the dominant problem in SE in service systems, and that
the cost and difficulty of establishing current state and legacy constraints before starting to implement a change is
often underestimated.
"Infostructure" (information infrastructure) to support the system lifecycle will include the following:
• Information assets such as process libraries, document templates, preferred parts lists, component re-use libraries,
as-specified and as-tested information about legacy systems, capitalized metrics for organizational performance
on previous similar projects, all with appropriate configuration control
• Modeling and simulation tools, data sets and run-time environments
• Shared working environments – workspaces for co-located teams, areas for people to interact with each other to
develop ideas and explore concepts, work areas suitable for analysis tasks, meeting rooms, access control
provision, etc.
• IT facilities - computer file structures, software licenses, IT equipment, computer and wall displays to support
collaborative working, printers, all with appropriate security provision and back-up facilities, procedures for
efficient use, and acceptable performance and usability
• Security provisions to protect own, customer, supplier and third party IPR and enforce necessary protective
working practices while allowing efficient access to information for those with a need to know
SE is a knowledge activity. Systems engineers need appropriate facilities for accessing, sharing and capturing
knowledge, as well as for interacting effectively with the whole set of stakeholders. Warfield (2006) describes
collaborative workspaces, environments and processes for developing a shared understanding of a problem situation.
Enabling Infrastructure
The ISO/IEC 15288 (ISO 2008) Infrastructure Management Process provides the enabling infrastructure and services
to support organization and project objectives throughout the life cycle. Infrastructure to support the system life
cycle will often include the following:
• Integration and test environment – bench and lab facilities, facilities for development testing as well as
acceptance testing at various levels of integration, calibration and configuration management of test environments
• Trials and validation environment – access to test ranges, test tracks, calibrated targets, support and storage for
trials – equipment, harbor, airfield and road facilities, safe storage for fuel, ordinance, etc.
• Training and support infrastructure – training simulators, embedded training, tools and test equipment for
operational support and maintenance, etc.
People
The roles people fill are typically defined by the business/enterprise (see Determining Needed Systems Engineering
Capabilities in Businesses and Enterprises), although those decisions may be pushed down to teams. Enabling Teams
explains how people are used in teams; Enabling Individuals describes the development of an individual's SE
competence.
The implementation of these roles needs further consideration. Sheard (1996) lists twelve system engineering roles.
Sheard (2000) draws an important distinction between roles involved in the discovery phase, characterized by a high
level of uncertainty, the program phase, which is more deterministic and defined, and the overall systems
engineering approach. Kasser et al. (2009) identify five types of systems engineer distinguished by the need to work
at increasing levels of abstraction, ambiguity, scope and innovation. Sillitto (2011a) discusses a number of SE roles
and the characteristics required of them, in the context of the wider engineering and business professional landscape.
Systems engineering exists within an enterprise “ecosystem.” Two key aspects to consider:
• How much should the business/enterprise nurture and value the systems engineer?
• How much should the business/enterprise pull value from systems engineers, rather than wait for systems
engineers to "push" value on the business/enterprise?
Process
Many SE organizations maintain a set of organizational standard processes which are integrated in their quality and
business management system, adapted to their business, and with tailoring guidelines used to help projects apply the
standard processes to their unique circumstances. Guidance on organizational process management is provided by
such frameworks as the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) (SEI 2010), which has two process areas on
organizational process: Organizational Process Development (OPD) is concerned with organizational definition and
tailoring of the SE lifecycle processes (discussed in detail elsewhere in this document) and Organizational Process
Focus (OPF), which is concerned with establishing a process culture in an organization.
To document, assess, and improve SE processes, businesses often establish a systems engineering process group.
Members of such groups often create standard process assets and may mentor teams and business units on how to
adopt those standard processes and assess how effective those processes are working. There is a large body of
literature on SE process improvement based on various process improvement models. Two of the most popular are
ISO/IEC 9000 (2000) and CMMI (SEI 2010). The Software Engineering Institute, which created the CMMI, offers
many free technical reports and other documents on CMMI at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi.
Assessment and measuring process performance is covered in Assessing Systems Engineering Performance of
Business and Enterprises.
Tools and Methods

SE organizations often invest in SE tools and models, develop their own, and/or integrate off-the-shelf tools into
their particular business/enterprise processes. Tools require great attention to culture and training; to developing a
consistent “style” of use so that people can understand each others’ work; and proper configuration and management
of the information so that people are working on common and correct information.
It is important that methods are used as well as tools, particularly to support Systems Thinking.
It is common practice in large SE organizations to have a tool support infrastructure which ensures that tools support
the organizational standard processes and are fully integrated with training, and that projects and teams can use the
tools to do their job and are not distracted by tool management issues that are more efficiently handled centrally.
Smaller SE organizations often operate more informally.
Fitting It All Together

The concept map in Figure 1 below shows the relationships between the various aspects of organization, resource,
responsibility, and governance.
Figure 1. Businesses, Teams, and Individuals in SE. (SEBoK Original)
Enterprise Structures and Their Effects on SE

Enterprises manage SE resources in many different ways. A key driver is the extent to which they seek to optimize
use of resources (people, knowledge, and assets) across teams and across the enterprise as a whole. Five common
ways of organizing resources to support multiple projects are: project; matrix; functional; integrated; and product
centered (CM Guide 2009, Handy 1985, PMI 2013, section 2.1.3). A large enterprise would likely apply some
combination of these five ways across its constituent sub-enterprises and teams. Browning (2009) offers a way to
optimize project organizational structure. Eisner (2008) offers a good overview of different organizational models.
Project Organization
A project organization is one extreme in which projects are responsible for hiring, training, and terminating staff, as
well as managing all assets required for delivery. In this model, systems engineers on a project report to the project
manager and resources are optimized for the delivery of the project. This model has the advantage of strongly
aligning the authority and responsibility of the project with the project manager. However, it operates at the expense
of sub-optimizing how the staff is deployed across the larger enterprise, how technology choices are made across
projects, etc. Systems Engineering Fundamentals (DAU 2001) offers a DoD view of good practice project
organizations.
Functional Organization
A functional organization demonstrates the opposite extreme. In a functional organization, projects delegate almost
all their work to functional groups, such as the software group, the radar group or the communications group. This is
appropriate when the functional skill is fast-evolving and dependent on complex infrastructure. This method is often
used for manufacturing, test engineering, software development, financial, purchasing, commercial, and legal
functions.
Matrix Organization
A matrix organization is used to give systems engineers a “home” between project assignments. Typically, a SE
functional lead is responsible for career development of the systems engineers in the organization, a factor that
influences the diversity and length of individual project assignments.
Integrated Organization
In an integrated organization, people do assigned jobs without specific functional allegiance. Those that perform SE
tasks are primarily identified as another type of engineer, such as a civil or electrical engineer. They know systems
engineering and use it in their daily activities as required.
Product Centered Organization

In accordance with the heuristic that “the product and the process must match” (Rechtin 1991, 132), a common
method for creating an organizational structure is to make it match the system breakdown structure (SBS).
According to Browning (2009), at each element of the SBS there is an assigned integrated product team (IPT). Each
IPT consists of members of the technical disciplines needed to design the product system. The purpose of the IPT is
to assure that the interactions among all the technical disciplines are accounted for in the design and that undesirable
interactions are avoided.
Interface to Other Organizations

Outside official engineering and SE organizations within an enterprise, there are other organizations whose charter is
not technical. Nevertheless, these organizations have an important SE role.
• Customer Interface Organizations: These are organizations with titles such as Marketing and Customer
Engineering. They have the most direct interface with current or potential clientele. Their role is to determine
customer needs and communicate these needs to the SE organization for conversion to product requirements and
other system requirements. Kossiakoff and Sweet (2003, 173) discuss the importance of understanding customer
needs.
• Contracts Organizations: These organizations interface with both customer and supplier organizations. Their
role is to develop clearly stated contracts for the developer or the supplier. These contracts convey tasks and
responsibilities for all SE roles of all parties. Technical specifications are attached to the contracts.
Responsibilities for verification and validation are specified.
• Supplier Management Organizations: These organizations are responsible for selecting and managing suppliers
and assuring that both contractual and technical products are in place. These organizations balance cost and risk to
assure that supplier products are delivered, verified, and validated for quality product. Blanchard and Fabrycky
(2005, 696-698) discuss the importance of supplier selection and agreement.
References
Works Cited
Blanchard, B. and W. Fabrycky. 2005. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Browning, T.R. 2009. "Using the Design Structure Matrix to Design Program Organizations." In A.P. Sage and W.B.
Rouse (eds.), Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Construction Management (CM) Guide. 2009. Project Organization Types. Accessed on September 14, 2011.
Available at http://cmguide.org/archives/319.
DAU. 2001. Systems Engineering Fundamentals. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU),
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Accessed on September 14, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. dau. mil/ pubscats/
PubsCats/SEFGuide%2001-01.pdf.
Wiley & Sons.
Elliott et al. 2008. INCOSE UK Chapter Working Group on Applying Systems Engineering to In-Service Systems.
Final Report. Somerset, UK: INCOSE UK Chapter Working Group. Accessed September 6, 2011. Available at http:/
/www.incoseonline.org.uk/Documents/Groups/InServiceSystems/is_tr_001_final_report_final_1_0.pdf.
Fasser, Y. and D. Brettner. 2002. Management for Quality in High-Technology Enterprises. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
John Wiley & Sons.
ISO/IEC. 2000. International standards for quality management. Genève, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization. ISO 9000:2000.
ISO/IEC. 2008. Systems and Software Engineering -- System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
15288:2008.
Kasser, J., D. Hitchins, and T. Huynh. 2009. "Re-engineering Systems Engineering." Proceedings of the 3rd Annual
Asia-Pacific Conference on Systems Engineering (APCOSE). 20-23 July 2009. Singapore.
Kossiakoff, A., and W.N. Sweet. 2003. Systems Engineering: Principles and Practice. Edited by A. Sage, Wiley
Series in Systems Engineering and Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Rechtin, E. 1991. Systems Architecting: Creating and Building Complex Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: CRC
Press.
Ring, J. and A.W. Wymore (eds.). 2004. Concept of Operations (conops) of A Systems Engineering Education
Community (SEEC). Seattle, WA, USA: INCOSE Education Measurement Working Group (EMWG),
INCOSE-TP-2003-015-01.
Sheard, S. 1996. "12 Systems Engineering Roles." Paper presented at the Sixth Annual International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium. 7-11 July 1996. Boston, MA, USA.
Sheard, S. 2000. "The 12 Systems Engineering Roles Revisited." Paper presented at the INCOSE Mid-Atlantic
Regional Conference. April 2000. Reston, VA, USA. p 5.2-1 - 5.2-9.
Sillitto, H. 2011a. "Unravelling Systems Engineers from Systems Engineering - Frameworks for Understanding the
Extent, Variety and Ambiguity of Systems Engineering and Systems Engineers." Paper presented at the 21st Annual
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium. 20-23 June 2011. Denver, CO,
USA.
Sillitto, H. 2011b. Sharing Systems Engineering Knowledge through INCOSE: INCOSE as An Ultra-Large-Scale
System? INCOSE Insight. 14(1) (April): 20.
Warfield, J. 2006. An Introduction to Systems Science. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press,
World Scientific.
Primary References
Wiley and Sons.
Kotter, J. 1995. "Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail." Harvard Business Review. 73(2): 59–67.
Sheard, S. 2000. "Systems Engineering Roles Revisited." Paper presented at the INCOSE Mid-Atlantic Regional
Conference. April 5-8 2000. Reston, VA, USA. p 5.2-1 - 5.2-9.
Blanchard, B. and W. Fabrycky. 2005. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice Hall.
Construction Management (CM) Guide. 2009. Project Organization Types. Accessed on September 6, 2011.
Available at http://cmguide.org/archives/319.
Defense Acquisition University (DAU). 2001. Systems Engineering Fundamentals. Fort Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense
Acquisition University Press. Accessed on September 6, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. dau. mil/ pubscats/
PubsCats/SEFGuide%2001-01.pdf.
Handy, C.B. 1985. Understanding Organizations. London, UK: Penguin Business.

Assessing Systems Engineering Performance of

Business and Enterprises
Lead Authors: Hillary Sillitto, Alice Squires, Heidi Davidz, Contributing Authors: Art Pyster, Richard Beasley
At the project level, systems engineering (SE) measurement focuses on indicators of project and system success that
are relevant to the project and its stakeholders. At the enterprise level there are additional concerns. SE governance
should ensure that the performance of systems engineering within the enterprise adds value to the organization, is
aligned to the organization's purpose, and implements the relevant parts of the organization's strategy.
For enterprises that are traditional businesses this is easier, because such organizations typically have more control
levers than more loosely structured enterprises. The governance levers that can be used to improve performance
include people (selection, training, culture, incentives), process, tools and infrastructure, and organization; therefore,
the assessment of systems engineering performance in an enterprise should cover these dimensions.
Being able to aggregate high quality data about the performance of teams with respect to SE activities is certainly of
benefit when trying to guide team activities. Having access to comparable data, however, is often difficult, especially
in organizations that are relatively autonomous, use different technologies and tools, build products in different
domains, have different types of customers, etc. Even if there is limited ability to reliably collect and aggregate data
across teams, having a policy that consciously decides how the enterprise will address data collection and analysis is
valuable.
Performance Assessment Measures

Typical measures for assessing SE performance of an enterprise include the following:
• Effectiveness of SE process
• Ability to mobilize the right resources at the right time for a new project or new project phase
• Quality of SE process outputs
• Timeliness of SE process outputs
• SE added value to project
• System added value to end users
• SE added value to organization
• Organization's SE capability development
• Individuals' SE competence development
• Resource utilization, current and forecast
• Productivity of systems engineers
• Deployment and consistent usage of tools and methods
How Measures Fit in the Governance Process and Improvement Cycle

Since collecting data and analyzing it takes effort that is often significant, measurement is best done when its
purpose is clear and is part of an overall strategy. The "goal, question, metric" paradigm (Basili 1992) should be
applied, in which measurement data is collected to answer specific questions, the answer to which helps achieve a
goal, such as decreasing the cost of creating a system architecture or increasing the value of a system to a particular
stakeholder. Figure 1 shows one way in which appropriate measures inform enterprise level governance and drive an
improvement cycle such as the Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) model.
Figure 1. Assessing Systems Engineering Performance in Business or Enterprise: Part of Closed Loop Governance. (SEBoK
Original)
Discussion of Performance Assessment Measures
Assessing SE Internal Process (Quality and Efficiency)

A process is a "set of interrelated or interacting activities which transforms inputs into outputs." The SEI CMMI
Capability Maturity Model (SEI 2010) provides a structured way for businesses and enterprises to assess their SE
processes. In the CMMI, a process area is a cluster of related practices in an area that, when implemented
collectively, satisfies a set of goals considered important for making improvement in that area. There are CMMI
models for acquisition, for development, and for services (SEI 2010, 11). CMMI defines how to assess individual
process areas against Capability Levels on a scale from 0 to 3, and overall organizational maturity on a scale from 1
to 5.
Assessing Ability to Mobilize for a New Project or New Project Phase

Successful and timely project initiation and execution depends on having the right people available at the right time.
If key resources are deployed elsewhere, they cannot be applied to new projects at the early stages when these
resources make the most difference. Queuing theory shows that if a resource pool is running at or close to capacity,
delays and queues are inevitable.
The ability to manage teams through their lifecycle is an organizational capability that has substantial leverage on
project and organizational efficiency and effectiveness. This includes being able to
• mobilize teams rapidly;
• establish and tailor an appropriate set of processes, metrics and systems engineering plans;
• support them to maintain a high level of performance;
• capitalize acquired knowledge; and
• redeploy team members expeditiously as the team winds down.
Specialists and experts are used to a review process, critiquing solutions, creating novel solutions, and solving
critical problems. Specialists and experts are usually a scarce resource. Few businesses have the luxury of having
enough experts with all the necessary skills and behaviors on tap to allocate to all teams just when needed. If the
skills are core to the business' competitive position or governance approach, then it makes sense to manage them
through a governance process that ensures their skills are applied to greatest effect across the business.
Businesses typically find themselves balancing between having enough headroom to keep projects on schedule when
things do not go as planned and utilizing resources efficiently.
Project SE Outputs (Cost, Schedule, Quality)

Many SE outputs in a project are produced early in the life cycle to enable downstream activities. Hidden defects in
the early phase SE work products may not become fully apparent until the project hits problems in integration,
verification and validation, or transition to operations. Intensive peer review and rigorous modeling are the normal
ways of detecting and correcting defects in and lack of coherence between SE work products.
Leading indicators could be monitored at the organizational level to help direct support to projects or teams heading
for trouble. For example, the INCOSE Leading Indicators report (Roedler et al. 2010) offers a set of indicators that is
useful at the project level. Lean Sigma provides a tool for assessing benefit delivery throughout an enterprise value
stream. Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering are now being developed (Oppenheim et al. 2010). An emerging
good practice is to use lean value stream mapping to aid the optimization of project plans and process application.
In a mature organization, one good measure of SE quality is the number of defects that have to be corrected "out of
phase"; i.e., at a later phase in the life cycle than the one in which the defect was introduced. This gives a good
measure of process performance and the quality of SE outputs. Within a single project, the Work Product Approval,
Review Action Closure, and Defect Error trends contain information that allows residual defect densities to be
estimated (Roedler et al. 2010; Davies and Hunter 2001).
Because of the leverage of front-end SE on overall project performance, it is important to focus on quality and
timeliness of SE deliverables (Woodcock 2009).
SE Added Value to Project

SE that is properly managed and performed should add value to the project in terms of quality, risk avoidance,
improved coherence, better management of issues and dependencies, right-first-time integration and formal
verification, stakeholder management, and effective scope management. Because quality and quantity of SE are not
the only factors that influence these outcomes, and because the effect is a delayed one (good SE early in the project
pays off in later phases) there has been a significant amount of research to establish evidence to underpin the asserted
benefits of SE in projects.
A summary of the main results is provided in the Economic Value of Systems Engineering article.
System Added Value to End Users

System-added value to end users depends on system effectiveness and on alignment of the requirements and design
to the end users' purpose and mission. System end users are often only involved indirectly in the procurement
process.
Research on the value proposition of SE shows that good project outcomes do not necessarily correlate with good
end user experience. Sometimes systems developers are discouraged from talking to end users because the acquirer
is afraid of requirements creep. There is experience to the contrary – that end user involvement can result in more
successful and simpler system solutions.
Two possible measures indicative of end user satisfaction are:
1. The use of user-validated mission scenarios (both nominal and "rainy day" situations) to validate requirements,
drive trade-offs and organize testing and acceptance;
2. The use of technical performance measure (tpm) to track critical performance and non-functional system
attributes directly relevant to operational utility. The INCOSE SE Leading Indicators Guide (Roedler et al. 2010,
10 and 68) defines "technical measurement trends" as "Progress towards meeting the measure of effectiveness
(moe) / measure of performance (mop) / Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and technical performance
measure (tpm)". A typical TPM progress plot is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Technical Performance Measure (TPM) Tracking (Roedler et al. 2010). This material is reprinted with permission from the
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
SE Added Value to Organization

SE at the business/enterprise level aims to develop, deploy and enable effective SE to add value to the organization’s
business. The SE function in the business/enterprise should understand the part it has to play in the bigger picture
and identify appropriate performance measures - derived from the business or enterprise goals, and coherent with
those of other parts of the organization - so that it can optimize its contribution.
Organization's SE Capability Development

The CMMI (SEI 2010) provides a means of assessing the process capability and maturity of businesses and
enterprises. The higher CMMI levels are concerned with systemic integration of capabilities across the business or
enterprise.
CMMI measures one important dimension of capability development, but CMMI maturity level is not a direct
measure of business effectiveness unless the SE measures are properly integrated with business performance
measures. These may include bid success rate, market share, position in value chain, development cycle time and
cost, level of innovation and re-use, and the effectiveness with which SE capabilities are applied to the specific
problem and solution space of interest to the business.
Individuals' SE Competence Development

Assessment of Individuals' SE competence development is described in Assessing Individuals.
Resource Utilization, Current and Forecast

Roedler et al. (2010, 58) offer various metrics for staff ramp-up and use on a project. Across the business or
enterprise, key indicators include the overall manpower trend across the projects, the stability of the forward load,
levels of overtime, the resource headroom (if any), staff turnover, level of training, and the period of time for which
key resources are committed.
Deployment and Consistent Usage of Tools and Methods

It is common practice to use a range of software tools in an effort to manage the complexity of system development
and in-service management. These range from simple office suites to complex logical, virtual reality and
physics-based modeling environments.
Deployment of SE tools requires careful consideration of purpose, business objectives, business effectiveness,
training, aptitude, method, style, business effectiveness, infrastructure, support, integration of the tool with the
existing or revised SE process, and approaches to ensure consistency, longevity and appropriate configuration
management of information. Systems may be in service for upwards of 50 years, but storage media and file formats
that are 10-15 years old are unreadable on most modern computers. It is desirable for many users to be able to work
with a single common model; it can be that two engineers sitting next to each other using the same tool use
sufficiently different modeling styles that they cannot work on or re-use each others' models.
License usage over time and across sites and projects is a key indicator of extent and efficiency of tool deployment.
More difficult to assess is the consistency of usage. Roedler et al. (2010, 73) recommend metrics on "facilities and
equipment availability".
Assessment of SE performance at the business/enterprise level is complex and needs to consider soft issues as well
as hard issues. Stakeholder concerns and satisfaction criteria may not be obvious or explicit. Clear and explicit
reciprocal expectations and alignment of purpose, values, goals and incentives help to achieve synergy across the
organization and avoid misunderstanding.
"What gets measured gets done." Because metrics drive behavior, it is important to ensure that metrics used to
manage the organization reflect its purpose and values, and that they do not drive perverse behaviors (Roedler et al.
2010).
Process and measurement cost money and time, so it is important to get the right amount of process definition and
the right balance of investment between process, measurement, people and skills. Any process flexible enough to
allow innovation will also be flexible enough to allow mistakes. If process is seen as excessively restrictive or
prescriptive, it may inhibit innovation and demotivate the innovators in an effort to prevent mistakes, leading to
excessive risk avoidance.
It is possible for a process improvement effort to become an end in itself rather than a means to improve business
performance (Sheard 2003). To guard against this, it is advisable to remain clearly focused on purpose (Blockley and
Godfrey 2000) and on added value (Oppenheim et al. 2010) as well as to ensure clear and sustained top management
commitment to driving the process improvement approach to achieve the required business benefits. Good process
improvement is as much about establishing a performance culture as about process.
The Systems Engineering process is an essential complement to, and is not a substitute for, individual
skill, creativity, intuition, judgment etc. Innovative people need to understand the process and how to
make it work for them, and neither ignore it nor be slaves to it. Systems Engineering measurement
shows where invention and creativity need to be applied. SE process creates a framework to leverage
creativity and innovation to deliver results that surpass the capability of the creative individuals –
results that are the emergent properties of process, organisation, and leadership. (Sillitto 2011)
References
Works Cited
Basili, V. 1992. "Software Modeling and Measurement: The Goal/Question/Metric Paradigm" Technical Report
CS-TR-2956. University of Maryland: College Park, MD, USA. Accessed on August 28, 2012. Available at http:/ /
www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/technical/T78.pdf.
Blockley, D. and P. Godfrey. 2000. Doing It Differently – Systems for Rethinking Construction. London, UK:
Thomas Telford Ltd.
Davies, P. and N. Hunter. 2001. "System Test Metrics on a Development-Intensive Project." Paper presented at the
11th Annual International Council on System Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium. 1-5 July 2001.
Melbourne, Australia.
Oppenheim, B., E. Murman, and D. Sekor. 2010. Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering. Systems Engineering.
14(1). New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Roedler, G. D. Rhodes, H. Schimmoller, and C. Jones (eds.). 2010. Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide,
version 2.0. January 29, 2010, Published jointly by LAI, SEARI, INCOSE, and PSM. INCOSE-TP-2005-001-03.
Accessed on September 14, 2011. Available at http://seari.mit.edu/documents/SELI-Guide-Rev2.pdf.
SEI. 2010. CMMI for Development, version 1.3. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie
Mellon University. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033. Accessed on September 14, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. sei. cmu.
edu/reports/10tr033.pdf.
Sheard, S, 2003. "The Lifecycle of a Silver Bullet." Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. (July
2003). Accessed on September 14, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. crosstalkonline. org/ storage/ issue-archives/
2003/200307/200307-Sheard.pdf.
Sillitto, H. 2011. Panel on "People or Process, Which is More Important". Presented at the 21st Annual International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium. 20-23 June 2011. Denver, CO, USA.
Woodcock, H. 2009. "Why Invest in Systems Engineering." INCOSE UK Chapter. Z-3 Guide, Issue 3.0. March
2009. Accessed on September 14, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. incoseonline. org. uk/ Documents/ zGuides/
Z3_Why_invest_in_SE.pdf.
Primary References
Basili, V. 1992. "Software Modeling and Measurement: The Goal/Question/Metric Paradigm". College Park, MD,
USA: University of Maryland. Technical Report CS-TR-2956. Accessed on August 28, 2012. Available at http:/ /
www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/technical/T78.pdf.
Frenz, P., et al. 2010. Systems Engineering Measurement Primer: A Basic Introduction to Measurement Concepts
and Use for Systems Engineering, version 2.0. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on System Engineering
(INCOSE). INCOSE–TP–2010–005–02.
Roedler, G., D. Rhodes, H. Schimmoller, and C. Jones (eds.). 2010. Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide,
version 2.0. January 29, 2010, Published jointly by LAI, SEARI, INCOSE, PSM. INCOSE-TP-2005-001-03.
Accessed on September 14, 2011. Available at http://seari.mit.edu/documents/SELI-Guide-Rev2.pdf.
Jelinski, Z. and P.B. Moranda. 1972. "Software Reliability Research". In W. Freiberger. (ed.), Statistical Computer
Performance Evaluation. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press. p. 465-484.
Alhazmi O.H. and Y.K. Malaiya. 2005. Modeling the Vulnerability Discovery Process. 16th IEEE International
Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE'05). 8-11 November 2005. Chicago, IL, USA.
Alhazmi, O.H. and Y.K. Malaiya. 2006. "Prediction Capabilities of Vulnerability Discovery Models." Paper
presented at Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS). 23-26 January 2006. p 86-91. Newport
Beach, CA, USA. Accessed on September 14, 2011. Available at http:/ / ieeexplore. ieee. org/ stamp/ stamp.
jsp?tp=&arnumber=1677355&isnumber=34933.

Developing Systems Engineering Capabilities

within Businesses and Enterprises
Lead Authors: Richard Beasley, Hillary Sillitto, Alice Squires, Contributing Authors: Heidi Davidz, Art Pyster
The pursuit of continuous improvement is a constant for many organizations. The description of Toyota (Morgan and
Liker 2006), the Lean principle of “pursue perfection” (Oppenheim et al. 2010), and the principle of “don’t let up”
(Kotter 1995), all drive a need for continuous improvement.
The ability to manage teams through their lifecycle – mobilize teams rapidly, establish and tailor an appropriate set
of processes, metrics and systems engineering plans, support them to maintain a high level of performance, capitalize
acquired knowledge and redeploy team members expeditiously as the team winds down – is a key organizational
competence that has substantial leverage on project and organizational efficiency and effectiveness.
The enterprise provides teams with the necessary resources, background information, facilities, cash, support
services, tooling, etc. It also provides a physical, cultural and governance environment in which the teams can be
effective. The key functions of the enterprise include generating and maintaining relevant resources, allocating them
to teams, providing support and governance functions, maintaining expertise and knowledge (on process, application
domain and solution technologies), securing the work that teams perform, organizing finance, and maintaining the
viability of the enterprise.
For improvements to persist, they must reside in the enterprise rather than just the individuals, so the improvements
can endure as personnel leave. This is reflected in the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) (SEI 2010)
progression from a "hero culture" to a "quantitatively managed and optimizing process".
This topic outlines the issues to be considered in capability development and organizational learning.
Overview
Figure 1 shows an "analyze – organize – perform – assess – develop" cycle, which is essentially a reformulation of
the Deming (1994) PDCA (Plan Do Check Act) cycle. The analysis step should cover both current and future needs,
as far as these can be determined or predicted. Goals and performance assessment, as discussed in Assessing
Systems Engineering Performance of Business and Enterprises, can be based on a number of evaluation frameworks,
such as direct measures of business performance and effectiveness and the CMMI capability maturity models. There
is evidence that many organizations find a positive correlation between business performance and CMMI levels (SEI
2010). This is discussed further in the Economic Value of Systems Engineering.
Figure 1. Concept Map for Businesses and Enterprises Topics. (SEBoK Original)
Change Levers
SE managers have a number of possible change levers they can use to develop SE capabilities. The amount of time
delay between moving a lever and seeing the effect varies with the type of level, size of the enterprise, culture of the
enterprise, and other factors.
Adjust Context, Scope, Purpose, Responsibility, Accountability Business Enterprise

If the other change levers cannot achieve the desired effect, the business or enterprise may have to renegotiate its
contribution to the higher-level strategy and mission.
Review and Adjust Required Capabilities

In the initial analysis the needed capability may have been over- or under-estimated. The need should be
re-evaluated after each rotation of the cycle to make sure the planning assumptions are still valid.
Adjust Organization within Business Enterprise

Adjusting organization and responsibilities so that "the right people are doing the right things", and ensuring that the
organization is making full use of their knowledge and skills, is often the easiest change to make (and the one that
may have the quickest effect).
A potential risk is that too much organizational churn disrupts relationships and can destabilize the organization and
damage performance. Process improvement can be set back by an ill-considered re-organization and can jeopardize
any certifications the organization has earned which demonstrate its process capability or performance.
Develop/Train/Redeploy/Get New Resources, Services and Individuals

Resources, services and individuals may include any of the components of organizational SE capability listed in
Organizing Business and Enterprises to Perform Systems Engineering.
Levers include subcontracting elements of the work, improving information flows, upgrading facilities, and
launching short-term training and/or long-term staff development programs. Many organizations consider how they
approach these improvements to be proprietary, but organizations such as NASA offer insight on their APPEL
website (NASA 2012).
Development of individuals is discussed in Enabling Individuals.
Improve Culture
Culture change is very important and powerful but needs to be handled as a long-term game and given long term
commitment.
Adjust and Improve Alignment of Measures and Metrics

Measurement drives behavior. Improving alignment of goals and incentives of different parts of the
business/enterprise so that everyone works to a common purpose can be a very effective and powerful way of
improving business/enterprise performance. This alignment does require some top-down guidance, perhaps a
top-down holistic approach, considering the business/enterprise as a system with a clear understanding of how the
elements of enterprise capability interact to produce synergistic value (See Assessing Systems Engineering
Performance of Business and Enterprises). It is commonly reported that as an organization improves its processes
with respect to the CMMI, its approach to metrics and measurement has to evolve.
Change Methods
Doing Everyday Things Better

There is a wealth of sources and techniques, including Kaizen, Deming PDCA (Deming 1994), Lean (Womack and
Jones 2003, Oppenheim et al. 2010), Six-Sigma (Harry 1997), and CMMI.
Value stream mapping is a powerful Lean technique to find ways to improve flow and handovers at interfaces.
Managing Technology Readiness

In high-technology industries many problems are caused by attempting to transition new technologies into products
and systems before the technology is mature; to make insufficient allowance for the effort required to make the step
from technology demonstration to reproducible and dependable performance in a product; or to overestimate the
re-usability of an existing product. NASA's TRL (Technology Readiness Level) construct, first proposed by John
Mankins in 1995 (Mankins 1995), is widely and successfully used to understand and mitigate technology transition
risk. Several organizations beyond NASA, such as the U.S. Department of Defense, even have automation to aid
engineers in evaluating technology readiness.
Variations on TRL have emerged, such as System Readiness Levels (SRL) (Sauser et al. 2006), which recognize that
the ability to successfully deliver systems depends on much more than the maturity of the technology base used to
create those systems; e.g., there could be surprising risks associated with using two technologies that are relatively
mature in isolation, but have never been integrated together before.
Planned Change: Standing Up or Formalizing SE in an Organization

Planned change may include:
• introducing SE to a business (Farncombe and Woodcock 2009);
• improvement/transformation;
• formalizing the way a business or project does SE;
• dealing with a merger/demerger/major re-organization;
• developing a new generation or disruptive product, system, service or product line (Christensen 1997);
• entering a new market; and
• managing project lifecycle transitions: start-up, changing to the next phase of development, transition to
manufacture/operation/support, wind down and decommissioning.
CMMI is widely used to provide a framework for planned change in a systems engineering context. Planned change
needs to take a holistic approach considering people (knowledge, skills, culture, ability and motivation), process,
measurement and tools as a coherent whole. It is now widely believed that tools and process are not a substitute for
skills and experience. Instead, they merely provide a framework in which skilled and motivated people can be more
effective. Therefore, change should start with people rather than with tools.
Before a change is started, it is advisable to baseline the current business performance and SE capability and
establish metrics that will show early on whether the change is achieving the desired effect.
Responding to Unforeseen Disruption

Unforeseen disruptions may be internally or externally imposed. Externally imposed disruptions may be caused by:
• the customer – win/lose contract, mandated teaming or redirection;
• competitors – current offering becomes more/less competitive, a disruptive innovation may be launched in
market; or
• governance and regulatory changes – new processes, certification, safety or environmental standards.
Internal or self-induced disruptions may include:
• a capability drop-out due to loss of people, facilities, financing;
• product or service failure in operation or disposal; or
• strategy change (e.g. new CEO, response to market dynamics, or a priority override).
Embedding Change
In an SE context, sustained effort is required to maintain improvements such as higher CMMI levels, Lean and
Safety cultures, etc., once they are achieved. There are several useful change models, including Kotter’s 8 phases of
change (Kotter 1995):
1. Establish a sense of urgency;
2. Create a coalition;
3. Develop a clear vision;
4. Share the vision;
5. Empower people to clear obstacles;
6. Secure short-term wins;
7. Consolidate and keep moving; and
8. Anchor the change.
The first six steps are the easy ones. The Chaos Model (Zuijderhoudt 1990; 2002) draws on complexity theory to
show that regression is likely if the short-term wins are not consolidated, institutionalized and anchored. This
explains the oft-seen phenomenon of organizations indulging in numerous change initiatives, none of which stick
because attention moves on to the next before the previous one is anchored.
Change Management Literature

SE leaders (directors, functional managers, team leaders and specialists) have responsibilities, and control levers to
implement them, that vary depending on their organization’s business model and structure. A great deal of their time
and energy is spent managing change in pursuit of short-, medium- and long-term organizational goals: “doing
everyday things better”; making change happen; embedding change and delivering the benefit; and coping with the
effects of disruptions. Mergers, acquisitions and project start-ups, phase changes, transitions from “discovery” to
“delivery” phase, transition to operation, sudden change in level of funding, can all impose abrupt changes on
organizations that can destabilize teams, processes, culture and performance. Table 1 below provides both the
general management literature and specific systems engineering knowledge.
Table 1. Change Management – Business and SE References. (SEBoK Original)

Area Business references SE references
Doing Every-day • Kaizen; Lean (Womack and Jones 2003); 6-Sigma • CMMI
Things Better (Harry 1997) • Visualizing Project Management (Forsberg and Mooz 2005)
• Four Competencies of Learning Organisation – • INCOSE IEWG "Conops for a Systems Engineering
Absorb, Diffuse, Generate, Exploit (Sprenger and Educational Community" (Ring and Wymore 2004)
Ten Have 1996) • INCOSE Lean Enablers for SE (Oppenhein et al. 2010)
• The Seven Habits of Very Effective People (Covey
1989)
Dealing with • Managing Crises Before They Happen (Mitroff and • Architecting Resilient Systems (Jackson 2010)
Unplanned Disruption Anagnos 2005); • Design Principles for Ultra-Large-Scale Systems (Sillitto
• Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead (Wack 1985) 2010)
• Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future
(Ringland 1988)
Driving Disruptive • The Innovator’s Dilemma (Christensen 1997)

Innovation • Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, (Mintzberg
2000)
• BS7000, Standard for Innovation Management (BSI
2008)
Exploiting Unexpected • Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (Mintzberg • Architecting for Flexibility and Resilience (Jackson 2010)
Opportunities 2000) • Open System Architectures; Lean SE; (Oppenheim et al.
• Mission Command (military), Auftragstechnik 2010)
(Bungay 2002, 32) • Agile Methodologies
Implementing and • Kotter’s Eight Phases of Change (Kotter 1995), • Doing it differently - Systems for Rethinking Construction
Embedding Planned • Berenschot’s Seven Forces (ten Have et al. 2003) (Blockley and Godfrey 2000)
Change • Levers of Control (Simons 1995) – Tension • INCOSE UK Chapter Z-guides:
between Control, Creativity, Initiative and Risk • Z-2, Introducing SE to an Organisation (Farncombe and
Taking Woodcock 2009);
• Chaos Model from ”Complexity Theory Applied to • Z-7, Systems Thinking (Godfrey and Woodcock 2010)
Change Processes in Organisations”; (Zuiderhoudt
and Ten Have 1999)
• Business Process Re-engineering (Hammer and
Champy 1993)
• The 5th Discipline (Senge 2006)
• Change Quadrants (Amsterdam 1999)
Understanding People’s • Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs • INCOSE Intelligent Enterprise Working Group –
Motivation, Behaviour • Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; “Enthusiasm”, Stretch Goals (Ring and Wymore 2004)
• NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) (See for • Sociotechnical Systems Engineering, Responsibility
example: Knight 2009) Mapping, from “Deriving Information Requirements from
• Performance by Design: Sociotechnical Systems in Responsibility Models” (Sommerville et al. 2009)
North America (Taylor and Felten 1993)
• Core Quadrants, (Offman 2001)
Understanding Culture • Cultural Dimensions, from “Culture’s

Consequences” (Hofstede 1994)
• Compliance Typology, from “A Comparative
Analysis of Complex Organizations” (Etzione
1961)
Helping Individuals • 5 C’s of Individual Change, and Rational/Emotional • Rational/Emotional, NLP and Other Methods, from
Cope with Change Axes, Kets De Vries, quoted in “Key Management “Relationships Made Easy” (Fraser 2010)
Models” (Ten Have et al. 2003)
References
Works Cited
Blockley, D. and P. Godfrey. 2000. Doing It Differently – Systems for Rethinking Construction. London, UK:
Bungay, S. 2002. Alamein. London, UK: Aurum press. First published 2002, Paperback 2003.
BSI. 2008. Design Management Systems. Guide to Managing Innovation. London, UK: British Standards Institution
(BSI). BS 7000-1:2008.
Christensen, C. 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Cambridge,
Covey, S.R. 1989. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Also released as a 15th Anniversary Edition (2004).
New York, NY, USA: Simon & Schuster, 1989.
Deming, W.E. 1994. The New Economics. Cambridge, MA, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Centre for
Advanced Educational Services.
Etzione, A. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. On Power, Involvement and their Correlates.
New York, NY, USA: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc.
Farncombe, A. and H. Woodcock. 2009. ‘’Enabling Systems Engineering.’’ Somerset, UK: INCOSE UK Chapter.
Z-2 Guide, Issue 2.0 (March 2009). Accessed September 14, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. incoseonline. org. uk/
Documents/zGuides/Z2_Enabling_SE.pdf.
Forsberg, K. and H. Mooz. 2005. Visualizing Program Management, Models and Frameworks for Mastering
Complex Systems, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Fraser, D. 2010. Relationships Made Easy: How to Get on with The People You Need to Get on with...and Stay
Friends with Everyone Else. Worcestershire, UK: HotHive Publishing.
Godfrey, P. and H. Woodcock. 2010. ‘’What is Systems Thinking?’’ Somerset, UK: INCOSE UK Chapter, Z-7
Guide, Issue 1.0 (March 2010). Accessed on September 7, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. incoseonline. org. uk/
Documents/zGuides/Z7_Systems_Thinking_WEB.pdf.
Hammer, M. and J.A. Champy. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New
York, NY, USA: Harper Business Books.
Harry, M.J. 1997. The Nature of Six Sigma Quality. Schaumburg, IL, USA: Motorola University Press.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA,
USA and London, UK: Sage Publications Inc.
A. P. Sage (ed.). Wiley Series in Systems Engineering and Management. New York, NY, USA: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Knight, S. 2009. NLP at Work - Neuro Linguistic Programming The Essence of Excellence, 1st edition 1995. 3rd
edition 2009. London, UK and Boston, MA, USA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Kotter, J. 1995. ‘’Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail’’. “Harvard Business Review.” (March-April
1995).
Mintzberg, H. 2000. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Education.
Mitroff, I. and G. Anagnos. 2005.Managing Crises Before They Happen: What Every Executive and Manager Needs
to Know about Crisis Management. New York, NY, USA: AMACOM Press.
NASA. 2012. ‘’APPEL: Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership.’’ Accessed on September 9, 2012.
Available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/seldp/nasa-se/index.html.
Offman, D.D. 2001. Inspiration and Quality in Organizations, (Original title (Dutch): Bezieling en Kwaliteit in
Organisaties), 12th Edition. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Kosmos-Z&K.
Ring, J. and A.W. Wymore (eds.) 2004. Concept of Operations (conops) of A Systems Engineering Education
Community (SEEC). Seattle, WA, USA: INCOSE Education Measurement Working Group (EMWG),
INCOSE-TP-2003-015-01.
Ringland, G. 1998. Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Sauser, B., D. Verma, J. Ramirez-Marque and R. Gove 2006. ‘’From TRL to SRL: The Concept of System Readiness
Levels.’’ Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), Los Angeles, CA.
USA: Doubleday/Currency.
Simons, R. 1995. Levers of Control, How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal.
Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Press.
Sillitto, H. 2010. ‘’Design Principles for Ultra-Large-Scale Systems.’’ Paper in 20th Annual International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium. 12-15 July 2010. Chicago, IL, USA. (Reprinted in The
Singapore Engineer, IES, April 2011).
Sommerville, I., R. Lock, T. Storer, and J.E. Dobson. 2009. ‘’Deriving Information Requirements from
Responsibility Models. Paper in the 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering
(CAiSE). June 2009. Amsterdam, Netherlands. p. 515-529.
Sprenger, C. and S. Ten Have. 1996. ‘’4 Competencies of a Learning Organisation.’’ (Original title (Dutch):
Kennismanagement Als Moter van Delerende Organisatie), Holland Management Review, (Sept–Oct): 73–89.
Taylor, J.C. and D.F. Felten. 1993. Performance by Design: Sociotechnical Systems in North America. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, USA:Pearson Education Ltd. (Formerly Prentice Hall).
ten Have, S., W.T. Have, F. Stevens, and M. van der Elst. 2003. Key Management Models - The Management Tools
and Practices That Will Improve Your Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Education Ltd. (Formerly
Prentice Hall).
Wack, P. 1985. ‘’Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead.’’ “Harvard Business Review:. (September-October 1985).
Womack, J. and D. Jones. 2003. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation, Revised
Edition. New York, NY, USA: Simon & Schuster.
Zuiderhoudt, W. and B. Ten Have. 1999. Complexity Theory Applied to Change Processes in Organisations.
Primary References
Kotter, J. 1995. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. “Harvard Business Review.” (March-April
1995).
Oppenheim, B., E. Murman, and D. Sekor. 2010. Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering. “Systems Engineering.”
USA: Doubleday/Currency.
None.

Culture
Lead Authors: Scott Jackson, Hillary Sillitto, John Snoderly, Contributing Authors: Richard Turner, Art Pyster,
Richard Beasley
Establishing and managing cultures, values, and behaviors is a critical aspect of systems engineering, especially in
the context of deploying SE within an organization (Fasser and Brettner 2002). The Columbia Accident Investigation
Report (NASA 2003, 101), defines culture as “the basic values, norms, beliefs, and practices that characterize the
functioning of a particular institution.”
Stable safety and process cultures are key to effective SE, and can be damaged by an overly-rapid pace of change, a
high degree of churn (see the Nimrod Crash Report, Haddon-Cave 2009), or by change that engineers perceive as
arbitrarily imposed by management (see Challenger, discussed below). On the other hand, a highly competitive,
adversarial or “blame” culture can impede the free flow of information and disrupt synergies in the workplace.
In the multi-national, multi-business, multi-discipline collaborative projects becoming increasingly prevalent in SE,
these factors take on greater importance.
Effective handling of cultural issues is a major factor in the success or failure of SE endeavors.
Systems Thinking and the Culture of the Learning Organization

Improving SE efficiency and effectiveness can be the goal of culture change. This kind of culture change encourages
people to learn to think and act in terms of systems, organizations and their enterprises; and, to take a systems
approach as described in Overview of Systems Approaches in Part 2, and by Lawson (2010). See the knowledge area
Systems Thinking.
Attaining a learning organization culture can be another goal of cultural change. And once the learning organization
exists, cultural change in general becomes easier to accomplish.
A learning organization aims to absorb, diffuse, generate, and exploit knowledge (Sprenger and Have 1996).
Organizations need to manage formal information and facilitate the growth and exploitation of tacit knowledge.
They should learn from experience and create a form of corporate memory – including process, problem domain and
solution space knowledge, and information about existing products and services. Fassner and Brettner (2002,
Culture 809
122-124) suggest that shared mental models are a key aspect of corporate knowledge and culture.
A learning organization culture is enabled by disciplines such as:
• personal mastery, where a person continually clarifies and deepens personal vision, focuses energy upon it and
develops patience in seeking it so as to view reality in an increasingly objective way;
• mental models, where people appreciate that mental models do indeed occupy their minds and shape their
actions;
• shared vision, where operating values and sense of purpose are shared to establish a basic level of mutuality; and
• team learning, where people’s thoughts align, creating a feeling that the team as a whole achieves something
greater than the sum of what is achieved by its individual members.
Systems thinking supports these four disciplines, and in so doing becomes the fifth discipline and plays a critical
role in promoting the learning organization (Senge et al. 1994).
Cultural Shortfalls and How to Change Them

Cultural shortfalls that are injurious to a system are described as negative paradigms by Jackson (2010) and others.
For example, a cultural reluctance to identify true risks is the hallmark of the Risk Denial paradigm as seen in the
Challenger and Columbia cases. When individuals believe a system is safe that is in fact unsafe, that is the Titanic
Effect paradigm, which is of course named for the ocean liner catastrophe of 1912.
Approaches to Change
Jackson and Erlick (Jackson 2010, 91-119) have found that there is a lack of evidence that a culture can be changed
from a success point of view. However, they do suggest the Community of Practice (Jackson 2010, 110-112), an
approach founded on the principles of organizational psychology, and discuss the pros and cons of other approaches
to culture change, including training, coaching, Socratic teaching, use of teams, independent reviews, standard
processes, rewards and incentives, use of cost and schedule margins, reliance on a charismatic executive, and
management selection. Shields (2006) provides a similarly comprehensive review.
The Columbia Accident (NASA 2003) and the Triangle fire (NYFIC 1912) official reports, among many others, call
for cultural issues to be addressed through improved leadership, usually augmented by the more objective approach
of auditing. One form of auditing is the Independent Technical Authority, which:
• is separate from the program organization;
• addresses only technical issues, not managerial ones; and
• has the right to take action to avoid failure, including by vetoing launch decisions.
An Independent Technical Authority cannot report to the program manager of the program in question, and it may be
formulated within an entirely separate business or enterprise which can view that program objectively. The point of
these stipulations is to ensure that the Independent Technical Authority is indeed independent.
Management and leadership experts have identified ways to lead cultural change in organizations, apart from
specifically safety-related cultural change. For example, Gordon (1961) in his work on the use of analogical
reasoning called synectics is one of several who emphasize creative thinking. Kotter (1995) advocates a series of
steps to transform an organization.
Culture 810
How Culture Manifests in Individuals and Groups

As a community’s physical, social, and religious environment changes over the generations, cultural beliefs, values,
and customs evolve in response, albeit at a slower pace.
Helmreich and Merritt describe the effects of cultural factors in the context of aviation safety and suggest
implications for safety cultures in other domains such as medicine. See (Helmreich and Merritt, 2000) and other
writings by the same authors.
We can describe the cultural orientation of an individual in terms of:
• national and/or ethnic culture;
• professional culture; and
• organizational culture.
Some particulars of these aspects of culture are sketched below.
National and/or Ethnic Culture

A product of factors such as heritage, history, religion, language, climate, population density, availability of
resources, politics, and national culture is acquired in one's formative years and is difficult to change. National
culture affects attitudes, behavior, and interactions with others.
National culture may help determine how a person handles or reacts to:
• rules and regulations;
• uncertainty; and
• display of emotion, including one’s own.
National culture may also play a role in whether a person
• communicates in a direct and specific style, or the opposite;
• provides leadership in a hierarchical manner, or a consultative one; and
• accepts decisions handed down in superior–inferior relationships, or questions them.
Professional Culture
Professional culture acts as an overlay to ethnic or national culture, and usually manifests in a sense of community
and in bonding based on a common identity (Helmreich and Merritt 2000). Well-known examples of professional
cultures include those of medical doctors, airline pilots, teachers, and the military.
Elements of professional culture may include:
• a shared professional jargon
• binding norms for behavior
• common ethical values
• self-regulation
• barriers to entry such as selectivity, competition and training
• institutional and/or individual resistance to change
• prestige and status, sometimes expressed in badges or uniforms
• stereotyped notions about members of the profession, in general and/or based on gender
Particularly important elements of professional culture (for example, those that affect safety or survivability) need to
be inculcated by extensive training and reinforced at appropriate intervals.
Culture 811
Organizational Culture
An organization's culture builds up cumulatively, determined by factors like its leadership, products and services,
relationships with competitors, and role in society.
Compared with one another, organizational cultures are not standardized because what works in one organization
seldom works in another. Even so, strength in the following elements normally engenders a strong organizational
culture:
• corporate identity;
• leadership;
• morale and trust;
• teamwork and cooperation;
• job security;
• professional development and training;
• empowerment of individuals; and
• confidence, for example in quality and safety practices, or in management communication and feedback.
When the culture of the people in an organization is considered as a whole, organizational culture acts as a common
layer shared by all. Despite this, differing national cultures can produce differences in leadership styles,
manager-subordinate relationships, and so on, especially in organizations with a high degree of multinational
integration.
Because organizations have formal hierarchies of responsibility and authority, organizational culture is more
amenable to carefully planned change than are either professional or national cultures. If changes are made in a
manner that is sympathetic to local culture (as opposed to that of a distant group head office, for example), they can
bring significant performance benefits. This is because organizational culture channels the effects of national and
professional cultures into standard working practices.
There are many definitions of culture in the literature. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (NASA 2003)
provides a useful definition for understanding culture and engineering.
Culture and Safety

Reason (1997, 191-220) describes a culture which focuses on safety as having four components:
1. A reporting culture which encourages individuals to report errors and near misses, including their own.
2. A just culture which provides an atmosphere of trust in which people are encouraged, even rewarded, for
providing essential safety-related information.
3. A flexible culture which abandons the traditional hierarchical reporting structure in favor of more direct
team-to-team communications.
4. A learning culture which is willing to draw the right conclusions from safety-related information and to
implement reforms when necessary.
Weick and Sutcliffe (2001, 3) introduce the term high reliability organizations (hros). HROs have fewer than their
fair share of accidents despite operating under trying conditions in domains subject to catastrophic events. Examples
include power grid dispatching centers, air traffic control systems, nuclear aircraft carriers, nuclear power
generation plants, hospital emergency departments, and hostage negotiation teams. There are five hallmarks of
HROs (Weick and Sutcliffe 2001, 10):
1. Preoccupation with Failure—HROs eschew complacency, learn from near misses, and do not ignore errors,
large or small.
2. Reluctance to Simplify Interpretations—HROs simplify less and see more. They “encourage skepticism
towards received wisdom.”
Culture 812
3. Sensitivity to Operations—HROs strive to detect “latent failures,” defined by James Reason (1997) as systemic
deficiencies that amount to accidents waiting to happen. They have well-developed situational awareness and
make continuous adjustments to keep errors from accumulating and enlarging.
4. Commitment to Resilience—HROs keep errors small and improvise “workarounds that keep the system
functioning.” They have a deep understanding of technology and constantly consider worst case scenarios in order
to make corrections.
5. Deference to Expertise—HROs “push decision making down.” Decisions are made “on the front line.” They
avoid rigid hierarchies and go directly to the person with the expertise.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Agency (2011) focuses mainly on leadership and individual authority in its policy
statement on safety culture.
Historical Catastrophes and Safety Culture

The cases described in the table below are some of the many in which official reports or authoritative experts cited
culture as a factor in the catastrophic failure of the systems involved.
Example Cultural Discussion
Apollo According to Feynman (1988), Apollo was a successful program because of its culture of “common interest.” The “loss of common
interest” over the next 20 years then caused “the deterioration in cooperation, which . . . produced a calamity.”
Challenger Vaughn (1997) states that rather than taking risks seriously, NASA simply ignored them by calling them normal—what she terms
“normalization of deviance,” whose result was that “flying with acceptable risks was normative in NASA culture.”
Columbia The Columbia Accident Investigation Report (NASA 2003, 102) echoed Feynman’s view and declared that NASA had a “broken
safety culture.” The board concluded that NASA had become a culture in which bureaucratic procedures took precedence over
technical excellence.
Texas City - On August 3, 2005, a process accident occurred at the BP refinery in a Texas City refinery in the USA resulting in 19 deaths and
2005 more than 170 injuries. The Independent Safety Review Panel (2007) found that a corporate safety culture existed that “has not
provided effective process safety leadership and has not adequately established process safety as a core value across all its five U.S.
refineries.” The report recommended “an independent auditing function.”
The On August 11, 1911, a fire at the Triangle shirtwaist factory in New York City killed 145 people, mostly women (NYFIC 1912). The
Triangle New York Factory Investigating Commission castigated the property owners for their lack of understanding of the “human factors” in
Fire the case and called for the establishment of standards to address this deficiency.
Nimrod On September 2, 2006, a Nimrod British military aircraft caught fire and crashed, killing its entire crew of 14. The Haddon-Cave
report (Haddon-Cave 2009) found that Royal Air Force culture had come to value staying within budget over airworthiness.
Referencing the conclusions of the Columbia Accident Investigation Report, the Haddon-Cave report recommends creation of a
system of detailed audits.
Relationship to Ethics
A business's culture has the potential to reinforce or undermine ethical behavior. For example, a culture that
encourages open and transparent decision making and behavior makes it harder for unethical behavior to go
undetected. The many differences in culture around the world are reflected in different perspectives on what ethical
behavior is. This is often reflected in difficulties that international companies face when doing business globally,
sometimes leading to scandals because behavior that is considered ethical in one country may be considered
unethical in another. See Ethical Behavior for more information about this.
Culture 813
Implications for Systems Engineering

As SE increasingly seeks to work across national, ethnic, and organizational boundaries, systems engineers need to
be aware of cultural issues and how they affect expectations and behavior in collaborative working environments.
SEs need to present information in an order and a manner suited to the culture and personal style of the audience.
This entails choices like whether to start with principles or practical examples, levels of abstraction or use cases, the
big picture or the detailed view.
Sensitivity to cultural issues is a success factor in SE endeavors (Siemieniuch and Sinclair 2006).
References
Works Cited
Wiley.
Feynman, R. 1988. "An Outsider's Inside View of the Challenger Inquiry." Physics Today. 41(2) (February 1988):
26-27.
Gordon, W.J.J. 1961. Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity. New York, NY, USA: Harper and Row.
Haddon-Cave, C. 2009. An Independent Review into the Broader Issues Surrounding the Loss of the RAF Nimrod
MR2 Aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006. London, UK: The House of Commons.
Helmreich, R.L., and A.C. Merritt. 2000. "Safety and Error Management: The Role of Crew Resource Management."
In Aviation Resource Management, edited by B.J. Hayward and A.R. Lowe. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. (UTHFRP
Pub250). p. 107-119.
Independent Safety Review Panel. 2007. The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Panel. Edited by
J.A. Baker. Texas City, TX, USA.
Kotter, J.P. 1995. ‘’Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.’’ “Harvard Business Review.” (March-April):
59-67.
NASA. 2003. Columbia Accident Investigation Report. Washington, D.C., USA: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). August 2003.
Nuclear Regulatory Agency. 2011. ‘’NRC Issues Final Safety Culture Policy Statement.’’ ‘NRC News’ (14 June
2011). Available at: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1116/ML11166A058.pdf.
NYFIC. 1912. Preliminary Report of the New York Factory Investigating Commission. R. F. Wagner (ed). New
York, NY, USA: New York Factory Investigating Commission (NYFIC).
Reason, J. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Currency Doubleday.
Shields, J.L. 2006. ‘’Organization and Culture Change.’’ In “Enterprise Transformation,” W.B. Rouse (ed.). Hoboken,
NJ, USA: John Wiley & Son.
Siemieniuch, C.E. and M.A. Sinclair. 2006. "Impact of Cultural Attributes on Decision Structures and Interfaces."
Paper presented at the 11th ICCRTS Coalition Command and Control in the Networked Era. Cambridge, MA, USA.
p. 1-20.
Culture 814
Sprenger, C. and S.T. Have. 1996. "4 Competencies of a Learning Organization." (Original title:
"Kennismanagement Als Moter van Delerende Organisatie"). “Holland Management Review” Sept–Oct, p. 73–89.
Vaughn, D. 1997. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago,
IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
Weick, K.E. and K.M. Sutcliffe. 2001. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of
Complexity. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass (Jossey-Bass acquired by Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley Periodicals,
Inc.).
Primary References
Wiley.
Helmreich, R.L., and A.C. Merritt. 2000. "Safety and Error Management: The Role of Crew Resource Management."
In “Aviation Resource Management,” edited by B.J. Hayward and A.R. Lowe. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. (UTHFRP
Pub250). p. 107-119.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. London, UK: Sage
Publications.
NASA. 2003. Columbia Accident Investigation Report. Washington, DC, USA: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). August 2003.
Reason, J. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Currency Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across
Nations, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software for the Mind, Third Edition. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw Hill.

815
Knowledge Area: Enabling Teams
Enabling Teams
Lead Author: Dick Fairley, Contributing Authors: Alice Squires, Art Pyster
This knowledge area focuses on enabling a team to perform SE. Once that is done using the techniques described
here, the knowledge found in Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management, about how to perform SE can be
applied. Part 5, Enabling Systems Engineering, to which this knowledge area belongs, explores how systems
engineering (SE) is enabled at three levels of organization: the business or enterprise, the team, and the individual.
For the sake of brevity, the term “business” is used to mean “business or enterprise” throughout most of this
knowledge area. For a nuanced explanation of what distinguishes a business from an enterprise, see Enabling
Topics
Each part of the SEBoK is composed of knowledge areas (KAs). Each KA groups topics together around a theme
related to the overall subject of the part. This KA contains the following topics:
• Team Capability
• Team Dynamics
• Technical Leadership in Systems Engineering
Overview
Products, enterprise systems, and services are developed, delivered, and sustained with the contributions of systems
engineers, who also coordinate the technical aspects of the multiple projects that comprise a program. These
activities require certain individuals to work in a cooperative manner to achieve shared objectives based on a
common vision—that is, as teams. Not every group of individuals working together is a team. To perform SE
activities efficiently and effectively, the capabilities of and dynamics within the team must be specifically attuned to
SE.
Although individuals sometimes perform SE activities, it is more usual to find project teams performing SE activities
while providing specialty engineering capabilities (see Systems Engineering and Specialty Engineering). Not all who
perform SE activities are labeled “systems engineers.” Thus, electrical, mechanical, and software engineers, service
providers, or enterprise architects in IT organizations may lead or be members of teams that perform SE tasks. Those
individuals are referred to as systems engineers in this knowledge area, regardless of their job titles within their
organizations.
This knowledge area is concerned with methods, tools, and techniques for enabling project teams to perform SE
activities. Its first topic, Team Capability, answers the questions:
• How do businesses determine value added by SE activities performed by project teams?
• How does an organization determine the efficiency and effectiveness of SE activities performed by project teams?
Its other topic, Team Dynamics, answers the question:
• How are group dynamics crucial to enabling systems engineers to perform work and achieve goals?
Enabling Teams 816
Topics from elsewhere in the SEBoK that cover related questions include Relationships between Systems
Engineering and Project Management and The Influence of Project Structure and Governance on Systems
Engineering and Project Management Relationships, which answer the question:
• What do managers need to know about managing systems engineers and project teams that perform SE activities?
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
Brooks, F. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month, Anniversary Edition. Reading, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.
Curtis, B., W.E. Hefley, and S.A. Miller. 2001. People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM), Version 2.0. Pittsburg,
PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI). CMU/SEI-2001-MM-01. Accessed on June 8, 2012. Available at
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/01mm001.cfm.
DeMarco, T. and T. Lister. 1999. Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Dorset
House.
Eisner, H. 2008.Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wiley and Sons.
Fairley, R.E. 2009. Managing and Leading Software Projects. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Forsyth, D.R. 2010. Group Dynamics, 5th edition. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Hase, S. 2000. "Measuring Organisational Capability: Beyond Competence", Paper presented at Future Research,
Research Futures: Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association (AVETRA) Conference
(2000). Accessed on June 8, 2012. Available at http:/ / www. avetra. org. au/ abstracts_and_papers_2000/ shase_full.
pdf.
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE-TP-2010-003.
NASA. 2011. Academy of Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL), NASA APPEL Performance
Enhancement. Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. nasa. gov/ offices/ oce/ appel/
performance/index.html.
None.

Team Capability 817
Team Capability
Lead Authors: Dick Fairley, Contributing Authors: Alice Squires, Art Pyster, Heidi Davidz
The capability of a team to perform systems engineering (SE) depends on having competent personnel, adequate
time, sufficient resources and equipment, and appropriate policies and procedures (Torres and Fairbanks 1996).
The team should have a charter. Staff must be proficient in the needed competencies and must work together with
the right attitude, under the right organization, and with appropriate tools, training, and processes such as
configuration management and peer review.
Those responsible for the team attaining the desired capability need to organize, staff, develop, and assess the team.
Techniques for pilot projects, post-mortem analysis, and lessons learned can be applied as well.
Organizing the Team

Project teams, and the roles of systems engineers within those teams, depend on factors such as the nature, size, and
scope of the project, the organization's preferred way of organizing teams, and external constraints such as a larger
program in which the project may be embedded. Options range from a dedicated team of systems engineers, to
Integrated Product Teams, to teams that include other kinds of engineers that perform systems engineering.
Systems engineers and SE teams may play the roles of technical leads, consultants, or advisers; this influences the
ways in which SE teams are organized. In some organizations, systems engineers and SE teams provide technical
leadership; they perform requirements analysis and architectural design, conduct trade studies, and allocate
requirements and interfaces to the various elements of a system. In addition, they work with component specialists,
develop integration plans and perform system integration, verification, and validation. Depending on the scope of
effort, they may also install the system and train the operators and users; provide ongoing services to sustain the
system; and retire/replace an aged system. Systems engineers may be housed within a functional unit of an
organization and assigned, in matrix fashion, to projects and programs, or they may be permanently attached to a
project or program for the duration of that endeavor. They may be organized based partially on their domain of
expertise, such as finance or telecommunications. For additional information on organizational options see
Determining Needed Systems Engineering Capabilities in Businesses and Enterprises.
In other cases, one or more systems engineers may provide consulting or advisory services, as requested, to projects
and programs. These engineers may be dispatched from a central pool within an organization, or they may be hired
from an outside agency.
An SE team can be organized by job specialization, where each SE team member (or each SE sub-team) plays a
different role; for example, requirements engineering, system architecture, integration, verification and validation,
field test, and installation and training In this case the various job specializations are typically coordinated by a lead
systems engineer.
Alternatively, an SE team can be organized by subsystem where each SE team member (or SE sub-team) performs
the previously indicated functions for each of the subsystems with a top-level team to coordinate requirements
allocation, interfaces, system integration, and system verification and validation.
Ideally, roles, responsibilities, and authority will be established for each project or program and used to determine
the optimal way to organize the team. Sometimes, however, an a priori organizational, project, or program structure
may determine the structure, roles, responsibilities, and authority of the SE team within a project or program; this
may or may not be optimal.
Within a project, a systems engineer or SE team may occupy a staff position subordinate to the project manager, as
indicated in Figure 1 or conversely, the SE team may provide the authoritative interface to the customer with the
project manager or management team, serving in a staff capacity, as indicated in Figure 2. In both cases, SE and
Team Capability 818
project management must work synergistically to achieve a balance among product attributes, schedule, and budget.
Eisner (2008) lays out various approaches to organizing systems engineers. For additional information see Systems
Engineering and Project Management.
Figure 1. SE Team Subordinate to Project Management. (SEBoK Original)
Figure 2. Project Management Subordinate to Systems Engineering. (SEBoK Original)
In scaling up to the program level, the considerations portrayed in Figures 1 and 2 can be generalized so that a
top-level SE team provides coordination among the subordinate projects. In this case, each project has an SE team,
and within each project the SE team members can be organized in either of the ways indicated in the figures. When
scaling up to programs, each of the sub-systems in Figures 1 and 2 are separate, coordinated projects.
The models presented in Figures 1 and 2 can be scaled down to smaller projects, where an individual systems
engineer performs the SE activities, either in the subordinate position of Figure 1 or the superior position of Figure 2.
In this case, there is a single subsystem (i.e., the system) and the supporting functions may be provided by the
systems engineer or by supporting elements of the larger organization.
The roles to be played by members of a SE team are influenced by the structures adopted as part of the
organizational strategy of the business in which the team is operating (see Systems Engineering Organizational
Strategy). In Product Centered Organizations, for example, an Integrated Product Team (IPT) is assigned to each
element of the system breakdown structure (SBS). Each IPT consists of members of the technical disciplines
necessary to perform systems engineering functions for that element of the system.
Team Capability 819
At the program level there is a top-level IPT commonly called a SE and integration team (SEIT), whose purpose is to
oversee all of the lower level IPTs. Some specialists, such as reliability and safety engineers, may be assigned to a
team to cover all elements within a given level of the SBS. These teams are sometimes called Analysis and
Integration teams (AITs), and are created at various levels of the SBS as needed.
Organizing communication and coordination among a group of systems engineers should follow the well-known 7 ±
2 rule because the number of communication paths among N engineers is N(N-1)/2; i.e., the number of links in a
fully connected graph (Brooks 1995). There are 10 communication paths among 5 engineers, 21 among 7 engineers,
and 36 among 9 engineers. An SE team of more than 10 members (45 paths) should be organized hierarchically with
a top-level team leader. Sub-teams can be partitioned by product subsystem or by process work activities (analysis,
design, integration).
Staffing the Team

Once the organizational structure of the SE team is understood, the team can be staffed. As noted in Enabling
Individuals, competency of an individual is manifest in the knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes needed for the
individual to perform a specific task efficiently and effectively. Different levels of competency may be needed in
different situations. Competencies include occupational competence, social competence, and communication
competence. Competent systems engineers, for example, have SE knowledge, skills, and ability; engage in systems
thinking; possess emotional intelligence; and have good communication and negotiation skills. In addition,
competent systems engineers are typically competent within specific domains (e.g. aerospace, medicine, information
technology) and within specific process areas of systems engineering (e.g., requirements, design, verification and
validation). (See Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management for more information on specific process areas.) The
article on Roles and Competencies includes a summary of SE competency models. Based on the context, these
competency models are tailored to match the needs of each project. The roles within the team are defined, and
competencies are linked to the roles. The lists of competencies given in those models are most often distributed
among the members of a SE team. It is not often that a single individual will possess the full list of competencies
given in these models.
In addition to individual competencies to perform SE roles, the collective SE competencies needed by a team depend
on additional factors including the domain, the stakeholders, the scope of the effort, criticality of outcome, new
initiative versus enhancement, and the responsibilities and authority assigned to the team. For example, collective SE
competencies needed to develop the IT enterprise architecture for a small company are quite different from those
needed to develop the architecture of an aircraft which is engineered and manufactured in a distributed fashion
around the world.
To determine the collective set of competencies an SE team needs to conduct a project or program, perform the
following steps:
1. Identify the context, to include:
1. domain
2. stakeholders
3. organizational culture
4. scope of effort
5. criticality of the product, enterprise endeavor, or service
6. new initiative or sustainment project
2. Clarify the responsibilities, authority, and communication channels of the systems engineering team
3. Establish the roles to be played by systems engineers, and other project personnel as determined by context,
responsibilities, and authority
4. Determine the required competencies and competency levels needed to fill each of the systems engineering roles
Team Capability 820
5. Determine the number of systems engineers needed to provide the competencies and competency levels for each
role
6. Determine the availability of needed systems engineers
7. Adjust based on unavailability of needed systems engineers
8. Organize the systems engineering team in a manner that facilitates communication and coordination within the
SE team and throughout the project or program
9. Consult stakeholders to ask “What are we missing?”
Competency models and skills inventories, such as INCOSE (2010) and Curtis et al. (2001), can be used as
checklists to assist in determining the needed competencies and competency levels for a product, enterprise, or
service. (See Roles and Competencies.)
When the needed competencies, competency levels, and capacities have been determined, one of two situations will
arise: In the optimal situation, the number of systems engineers who have the needed competencies and competency
levels to fill the identified roles will be available; or, they will be unavailable or cannot be provided because of
insufficient funding. For example, a new initiative may need a lead engineer, a requirements engineer, a systems
architect and a systems integrator-tester to accomplish systems engineering tasks. Budgetary constraints may
indicate that only two of the four roles can be supported. Compromises must be made; perhaps the system architect
will be the lead engineer and the requirements engineer will also be assigned the tasks of system integration and
testing despite lacking the desired level of skill and experience (i.e., competency level) in integration and testing.
Developing the Team

Before a team that performs SE can be effective, it needs to establish its own identity, norms, and culture. The
well-known four stages of “forming, storming, norming, performing” (Tuckman 1965, 384-399) indicate that a SE
team needs time to form, for the members to get to know and understand each other as well as the tasks to be
performed, and to work out how best to work together. It is also important that care is taken to ensure, to the greatest
extent possible, assignment of roles and responsibilities that would allow SE team members to satisfy their
individual goals (Fraser 2010).
The cost and time to cohesion can be minimized by good selection and management of the SE team, consistent
training across the business so that team members have a common framework of understanding and language for
their work, good “infostructure” to allow easy and useful sharing of information, and shared behavioral norms and
values. Conversely, in cross-site, inter-company and international SE teams, more time must be allowed for team
formation. SE teams are more effective if attention is given to ensuring that each member's work satisfies their
individual goals as well as the team and organizational objectives (Fraser 2010).
According to Stephenson and Weil (1992), capable people are:
those who know how to learn; are creative; have a high degree of self-efficacy, can apply competencies
in novel as well as familiar situations; and work well with others. In comparison to competency, which
involves the acquisition of knowledge and skills, capability is a holistic attribute.
The results of a survey by Steward Hase (2000) concluded that the following are significant contributors to the
human elements of capability:
• Competent People
• Working in Teams
• Visible Vision and Values
• Ensuring Learning Takes Place
• Managing the Complexity of Change
• Demonstrating the Human Aspects of Leadership
• Performing as Change Agents
Team Capability 821
• Involving People in Change

• Developing Management Talent
• Committing to Organizational Development
These attributes of human capability apply to all members of an organization, including systems engineers, both as
individuals and as members of project teams.
DeMarco and Lister (1999) discuss “teamicide” techniques by which management, perhaps unintentionally, practices
sure fire techniques to kill teams. Teamicide techniques include
• physical separation of team members
• fragmentation of time
• unrealistic schedules
• excessive overtime
Methods for developing and improving SE capabilities within teams include building cohesive teams, conducting
pilot projects, participating in and studying post-mortem analyses, and preparing and examining lessons learned.
Members of a cohesive systems engineering team have a strong sense of commitment to the work and to the other
team members. Commitment creates synergy, which results in performance greater than the sum of the performance
of the individual team members.
Some key indicators of a cohesive systems engineering team (Fairley 2009, 411) are:
• clear understanding of systems engineering roles and responsibilities
• shared ownership of systems engineering work products
• willingness of systems engineers to help one another and to help other project members
• good communication channels among systems engineers and with other project elements
• enjoyment of working together
Negations of these indicators—the hallmarks of a dysfunctional team—are:
• confusion of systems engineering roles and responsibilities
• protective ownership of systems engineering work products
• unwillingness to help one another
• absence of good communications among systems engineers and with other project elements
• personal dislike of one or more other systems engineering team members
Techniques for building and maintaining cohesive systems engineering teams include:
• an appropriate number of systems engineering team members
• a correct mix of systems engineering competencies
• celebration of project milestones
• team participation in off-site events
• social events that include family members
Assessing the Team

Performance evaluation is most often conducted for individuals. Robbins (1998, 576) states the historic belief that
individuals are the core building blocks around which organizations are built. However, it is also important to assess
the team's capability and performance. To design a system that supports and improves the performance of teams,
including SE teams, Robbins offers four suggestions:
1. Tie the SE team's performance and the overall project team's results to the organization's goals
2. Begin with the team's customer and the work process the team follows to satisfy customer's needs
3. Measure both team and individual performance and compare them to organizational norms and benchmarks
4. Train the team to create its own measures
Team Capability 822
Robbins' approach can be applied in the context of SE:

1. Tie the SE and overall project team's results to the project's and the organization's goals. Use measures that apply
to goals the team must achieve. For SE in particular, the team effort should be tied to the product or service which
the organization seeks to deliver. The end product for the SE team should not be only the SE work products but
the delivered products and services provided by the project. For more information on general SE assessment, see
Systems Engineering Assessment and Control.
2. Consider the SE team's customers and more broadly the key stakeholders and the work processes that the SE
team follows to satisfy customer needs. SE customers and stakeholders can be internal or external; the internal
customers of systems engineering are the other project elements that depend on systems engineering work
products and services, which can be evaluated for on-time delivery of quantity and quality. The process steps can
be evaluated for waste and cycle time; i.e., efficiency and effectiveness.
3. Assess both individual and team performance. Define the roles of each SE team member in terms of the tasks that
must be accomplished to produce the team's work products. For more information on individual assessment, see
Assessing Individuals.
4. Finally, have the team define its own measures of achievement of goals. This helps all members of the team to
understand their roles, while also building team cohesion.
As an example, NASA's Academy of Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL) provides a service
where team performance is assessed and interventions are provided to the team for specific gaps in performance
(NASA 2011). This performance enhancement service increases a project's probability of success by delivering the
right support to a project team at the right time. APPEL offers the following assessments:
• Project/Team Effectiveness — Measures effectiveness of a team’s behavioral norms
• Individual Effectiveness — Measures effectiveness of an individual’s behavioral norms
• Project/Team Process Utilization — Measures the extent of a team’s utilization of key processes
• Project/Team Knowledge — Covers topics that NASA project personnel should know in order to perform in their
jobs
The APPEL approach can be applied to assessing the performance of a SE team and individual systems engineers.
Further Techniques for Building Team Capability

Further techniques for developing SE capabilities within teams include conducting pilot projects, preparing
post-mortem analyses, and participating in and studying lessons learned.
Pilot Projects
Pilot projects are an effective mechanism by which SE teams can build team cohesion, acquire new skills, and
practice applying newly acquired skills to projects and programs. Pilot projects can be conducted for the sole
purpose of skills acquisition, or they can be conducted to determine the feasibility of a proposed approach to solving
a problem. Feasibility studies and acquisition of new team skills can be combined in proof-of-concept studies.
Primary inhibitors to conducting SE pilot projects are the time required and diversion of personnel resources.
Team Capability 823
Post-Mortem Analysis
A post-mortem analysis identifies areas for improvement of SE performance in future projects and programs. Inputs
to a post-mortem analysis include:
• personal reflections and recollections of project personnel and other stakeholders;
• email messages, memos, and other forms of communication collected during a project or program;
• successful and unsuccessful risk mitigation actions taken; and
• trends and issues in change requests and defect reports processed by the change control board.
Team participation in a post-mortem analysis allows SE team members to reflect on past efforts, which can lead to
improved team capabilities for future projects or, if the present team is being disbanded, improved individual ability
to participate in future systems engineering teams.
Inhibitors for effective post-mortem analysis include failure to allocate time to conduct the analysis, failure to
effectively capture lessons-learned, failure to adequately document results, reluctance of personnel to be candid
about the performance of other personnel, and negative social and political aspects of a project or program.
Mechanisms to conduct effective post-mortem analyses of SE projects include using a third-party facilitator,
brainstorming, Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat (SWOT) analysis, fishbone (Ishikawa) diagrams, and mind
mapping.
Lessons Learned
Lessons learned in SE can be both positive and negative. Experiences gained and documented from past projects and
programs can be an effective mechanism for developing and improving the capabilities of a team that performs SE
tasks. Studying past lessons learned can aid in team formation during the initiation phase of a new project. Lessons
learned during the present project or program can result in improved capabilities for the remainder of the present
project and for future projects. Inputs for developing and documenting SE lessons learned include results of past
post-mortem analyses plus personal recollections of the team members, informal war stories, and analysis of email
messages, status reports, and risk management outcomes. Inhibitors for developing and using SE lessons learned
include failure to study lessons learned from past projects and programs during the initiation phase of a project,
failure to allocate time and resources to developing and documenting lessons learned from the present project or
program, and reluctance to discuss problems and issues.
References
Works Cited
Brooks, F. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month. Anniversary Edition. Reading, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.
Curtis, B., W.E. Hefley, and S.A. Miller. 2001. People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM), version 2.0. Pittsburgh,
PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI). CMU/SEI-2001-MM-01. Accessed April 24, 2013. Available: http:/
/www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/01mm001.cfm.
DeMarco, T., and T. Lister. 1999. Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA:
Dorset House.
Wiley & Sons.
Fraser, D. 2010. Relationships Made Easy: How to Get on with The People You Need to Get on with...and Stay
Friends with Everyone Else. Worchestershire, UK: HotHive Books.
Team Capability 824
Hase, S. 2000. "Measuring Organisational Capability: Beyond Competence." Paper presented at Future Research,
(2000). Accessed September 14, 2011. Available: http:/ / www. avetra. org. au/ abstracts_and_papers_2000/
shase_full.pdf.
Enhancement. Accessed September 15, 2011. Available: http://appel.nasa.gov/team/request-support/.
Robbins, S.P. 1998. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Applications, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA: Prentice Hall. p. 576.
Stephenson, J. and S. Weil. 1992. Quality in Learning: A Capability Approach in Higher Education. London, UK:
Kogan Page.
Torres, C., and D. Fairbanks. 1996. Teambuilding: The ASTD Trainer's Sourcebook. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill.
Tuckman, B. 1965. "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups." Psychological Bulletin. 63 (6): 384-99.
Primary References
Brooks, F. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month. Anniversary Edition. Reading, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.
Curtis, B., W.E. Hefley, and S.A. Miller. 2001. People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM), Version 2.0. Pittsburg,
PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI). CMU/SEI-2001-MM-01. Accessed on June 8, 2012. Available at
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/01mm001.cfm.
DeMarco, T. and T. Lister. 1999. Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams. 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Dorset
House.
Eisner, H. 2008. Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Hase, S. 2000. "Measuring Organisational Capability: Beyond Competence". Paper presented at Future Research,
(2000). Accessed on June 8, 2012. Available at http:/ / www. avetra. org. au/ abstracts_and_papers_2000/ shase_full.
pdf.
Enhancement. Accessed on May 2, 2014. Available at http://appel.nasa.gov/team/request-support/.
Torres, C. and D. Fairbanks. 1996. Teambuilding: The ASTD Trainer's Sourcebook. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill.
Team Capability 825
Fasser, T. and D. Brettner. 2002. Management for Quality in High Technology Enterprises. New York, NY, USA:
Wiley.
INEEL 2004. A Project Management and Systems Engineering Structure for a Generation IV Very High
Temperature Reactor. Idaho Falls, ID, USA: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,
NEEL/CON-04-02175. Accessed on September 14, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. inl. gov/ technicalpublications/
Documents/2808490.pdf.

Team Dynamics
Lead Authors: Dick Fairley, Contributing Authors: Alice Squires, Art Pyster
A systems engineering (SE) team is a group of individuals who cooperatively perform a collection of SE tasks based
on a shared vision and a common set of engineering objectives. Applying the practical considerations of group
dynamics is essential to enabling SE teams to successfully perform SE activities. The interplay of the behaviors of
humans in groups is varied, changing, and inescapable. Nevertheless, study of these behaviors has yielded valuable
insight and knowledge on the dynamics of individuals within groups. The awareness and application of group
dynamics is crucial to facilitating systems engineers' performance of work and achievement of their goals.
The study of group dynamics was initially within the province of psychology and later within sociology. The
importance of group dynamics to successful teams has led other disciplines such as business management to study
and apply team dynamics.
History
The origins of the study of group dynamics began with Gustave Le Bon. Le Bon wrote La psychologie des fouls in
1895, which was translated into English as The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind a year later. Sigmund Freud
wrote Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego in 1922 responding to Le Bon's work. Kurt Lewin is
acknowledged as the "founder of social psychology", coining the term group dynamics. He founded the Research
Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1945, relocating in 1948 to the
University of Michigan. Wilfred Bion studied group dynamics from a psychoanalytical perspective. He helped found
the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in 1947. In that same year, both the Research Center for Group
Dynamics and the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations founded the journal Human Relations. The study of group
dynamics is now worldwide, active, and well established.
Team Dynamics 826
Nature of Groups
Groups are endemic to human existence and experience; humans are by nature social animals. Consequentially, an
informed understanding of the nature of groups is very useful in enabling teams to perform SE. Research into group
behavior reveals that the nature of a group can be described by interaction, goals, interdependence, structure, unity,
and stage. (Forsyth 2010, 5-10)
Interaction
Communication (both verbal and non-verbal) among members within a group produces constantly changing and
varied interactions. Group dynamics are more than the sum of the interactions between individual members; group
interactions create synergistic behaviors and results. Interactions can be placed into two categories (1)
socio-emotional interactions and (2) task interactions (Bales 1950, 1999).
Goals
All groups exist for the purpose of achieving one or more goals. The goals provide the basis for the group’s tasks.
The tasks accomplished by the group can be categorized into activities and characterized by a Circumplex Model
(McGrath 1984, 61), which establishes four quadrants, where the X-axis is choose vs. execute and the Y-axis is
generate vs. negotiate.
Interdependence
Interdependence is the state of being dependent to some degree on other people, as when one’s outcomes, actions,
thoughts, feelings, and experiences are determined in whole or in part by others. Interdependence can be categorized
into five types (1) mutual, reciprocal; (2) unilateral; (3) reciprocal, unequal; (4) serial; and (5) multi-level. (Forsyth
2010, 8)
Structure
Structure includes the organization and patterned behaviors of a group. Structure can be deliberately devised and/or
emergently observed. Most groups have both kinds of structures, which are evinced in the roles and norms of the
group. The roles of leader and follower are fundamental ones in many groups, but other roles — information seeker,
information giver, elaborator, procedural technician, encourager, compromiser, harmonizer — may emerge in any
group (Benne and Sheats 1948; Forsyth 2010, 9). Norms are the rules that govern the actions of group members;
norms can include both formal and informal rules.
Cohesion
The interpersonal forces that bind the members together in a single unit with boundaries that mark who is in the
group and who is outside of it constitute a group’s cohesion (Dion 2000). Cohesion is an essential quality of group; it
can vary from weak to strong. A team cannot perform effectively without strong group cohesion.
Stage
Groups exhibit stages of development. Being comprised of people, it is not surprising that groups collectively
demonstrate the dynamics and growth of the individuals that constitute the group members. The most well-known
and wide-spread model of the stages of group development was developed by Bruce Tuckman. The initial model
identified the sequence of group development as (1) Forming, (2) Storming, (3) Norming, and (4) Performing
(Tuckman 1965). He later added a final stage to the model: (5) Adjourning (Tuckman and Jensen 1977). While
Tuckman’s model is sequential, others have observed that groups may actually recursively and iteratively progress
through the different stages (Forsyth 2010, 20).
Team Dynamics 827
The dynamics associated with creating, nurturing, and leading a team that will successfully achieve the team's goals
is important and challenging. Although psychologists and sociologists have conducted and continue to conduct
research to understand team dynamics, the profession of business management has additionally sought to develop
practical guidance for utilizing and applying this knowledge to foster high-performance teams. Accordingly,
business management has focused its contribution to the field of team dynamics by publishing practical guidebooks
to analyze the problems and focus on developing solutions to the problems of team dynamics (see Additional
References). There are many consultancy firms throughout the world that assist organizations with the application of
practical knowledge on team dynamics. Successful systems engineering teams would do well to not ignore, but
rather take advantage of this knowledge.
References
Works Cited
Bales, R.F. 1950. Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for The Study of Small Groups. Reading, MA, USA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bales, R.F. 1999. Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Transaction.
Benne, K.D. and P. Sheats. 1948. "Functional Roles of Group Members." Journal of Social Issues. 4 (2): 41-49.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Dion, K.L. 2000. "Group Cohesion: From 'Field of Forces' to Multidimensional Construct." Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice. 4 (1): 7-26. Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Association.
McGrath, J.E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Tuckman, B.W. 1965. "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups." Psychological Bulletin. 63 (6):384-399.
Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Association.
Tuckman, B.W. and M.C. Jensen. 1977. "Stages of Small Group Development Revisited." Group and Organization
Management 2 (4): 419-427. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Primary References
Scholtes, P.R., B.L. Joiner, and B.J. Streibel. 2003. The Team Handbook, 3rd edition. Edison, NJ, USA: Oriel Inc.
Larson, C.E. and F.M.J. LaFaso. 1989. Teamwork: What Must Go Right, What Can Go Wrong. Newbury Park, CA,
USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lencioni, P. 2002. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. 2005. Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.
McShane, S.L. and M.A. Von Glinow. 2010. Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge and Practice for the
Real World. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Team Dynamics 828

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Lead Authors: Alan Harding, Alice Squires
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) foster increased engagement, productivity, and innovation in an organization.
DEI in Systems Engineering

Systems engineers play a pivotal role in integrating concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion within the teams they
work on and in system design and development. In particular, systems engineers should:
1. Ensure that the systems engineering team and its leadership is inclusive and welcomes a diverse range of talent,
and where necessary taking deliberate action to provide equity.
2. Ensures that the systems we realise are as accommodating as possible of the differences within the entire
stakeholder community. This is known as “inclusive engineering”.
Failure to address either aspect can result in sub-optimal outcomes whether in terms of missed solutions, lower
productivity, or delivering a system that does not fully meet the needs of the whole stakeholder community, i.e.
failing to meet the ultimate goal of delivering a total optimal system solution.
Systems engineers are responsible for effectively communicating the importance and value of diversity, equity, and
inclusion in enabling, promoting, and advancing systems engineering and systems approaches to address complex
societal and technical global challenges.
Figure 1 shows how an inclusive development approach contributes to realizing inclusive solutions, within the
context of the human system (whether within an organisation, country, or the world), itself set within the context of
the natural world. The natural world is shown because of the strong linkage between the full lifecycle of engineered
products (from concept to disposal) and sustainable development. For instance:
• Water pollution from industrial plants affecting those who live nearby
• Air pollution from cars affecting pedestrians and those who live near major roads
• Product end of life/disposal effects e.g. hazardous substances, contribution to land-fill
Figure 1. Relationship between Inclusive Approach and Inclusive Product. (SEBoK Original)
Definitions of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

The following definitions are taken from the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET 2020),
where they provide a reference point for conversations and materials about diversity, equity and inclusion.
• Diversity is the range of human differences, encompassing the characteristics that make one individual or group
different from another. Diversity includes, but is not limited to, the following characteristics: race, ethnicity,
culture, gender identity and expression, age, national origin, religious beliefs, work sector, physical ability, sexual
orientation, socioeconomic status, education, marital status, language, physical appearance, and cognitive
differences.
• Equity is the fair treatment, access, opportunity and advancement for all people, achieved by intentional focus on
their disparate needs, conditions and abilities. Achieving equity requires understanding of historical and systemic
patterns of disparity to address and eliminate barriers, and remove participation gaps as part of a comprehensive
strategy to achieve equitable outcomes and social justice.
• Inclusion is the intentional, proactive, and continuing efforts and practices in which all members respect, support,
and value others. An inclusive environment provides equitable access to opportunities and resources, empowers
everyone to participate equally, and offers respect in words and actions for all.
Commonly, the compound term "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" (abbreviated to DEI) is used to refer to the broad
subject area. The definition of diversity given encompasses a wide range of characteristics. As an example, Figure 2
shows 28 of these characteristics recognised by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
(Harding and Pickard 2019) grouped into five areas: intrinsic, employment, environment, interaction, and family.
The figure shows the relevance of these characteristics to the INCOSE Systems Engineering Certification Program.
Figure 2. Categorized Dimensions of Diversity. (SEBoK Original, adapted from (Harding and Pickard 2019))
Relevance of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to Engineering

Engineers apply ingenuity, innovation, and systematic approaches to solve challenging problems. Life experience
and academic research shows us that bringing a wide range of skills, knowledge, and thinking styles to bear on a
problem is the most effective way to accelerate and improve the intended outcomes. These outcomes include
improved “…financial performance, greater innovation and creativity, increased employee productivity and
retention, improved customer or client orientation, and increased customer or client satisfaction.” (Royal Academy of
Engineering 2015). Hunt et al. (2018) have found that companies at the forefront of gender and ethnic/cultural
diversity in their leadership perform better financially.
By contrast, a team of people with the same cultural background, life experiences, education, and thinking style
could be expected to be relatively less effective and more prone to identifying predictable solutions. The US
National Academy of Engineering (2002) notes the opportunity cost of a lack of diversity in terms of “designs not
thought of, in solutions not produced.”
Inclusion, or ensuring a sense of inclusion in everyone, is necessary to ensure that all team members genuinely feel
and believe that they belong and hence are able to use their talents and unique outlook to the maximum degree. By
contrast, a lack of inclusion might make someone feel present but not involved or valued with the effect that the team
as a whole does not deliver its best possible results.
Equity is not the same as equality, nor is it the same as inequality. It is simply giving more to those who need it,
which is proportionate to their own circumstances, in order to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities. In an
engineering context this might mean providing more support to a disadvantaged student so they can reach their full
potential, or providing additional support or time to a team member with a condition such as dyslexia.
Relevance of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to Systems Engineering

DEI is vital to successful systems engineering because of the range of contexts in which it is applied and the
consideration of multiple stakeholder viewpoints at the heart of the approach. Systems engineering is applied to a
wide range of system types in a broad variety of contexts–engineered systems range from microelectronics to
aircraft, from abstract systems to smart cities. Systems engineers may be working with a customer, a prime
contractor or integrator, a supplier or product manufacturer, a research/technology organisation, or a government
body. And these activities take place all over the globe, often as part of consortiums or complex partnered
programmes involving multiple organisations, countries, and cultures.
Applying systems engineering requires consideration of multiple viewpoints (such as the user, maintenance, safety,
security) to achieve the proper holistic view of problem and solution. This means that the systems engineering team
must be able to understand and work with a wide range of stakeholders. The transdisciplinary and integrative nature
of systems engineering across other disciplines and activities, again, means that the systems engineering team needs
to understand and work well with all the disciplines and specialities involved in realising a system (INCOSE 2020).
Given this diversity of context and of types of systems engineered, and the wide range of stakeholders with whom
they need to work, systems engineering workforce and culture should be at the forefront of DEI. In this way, we can
represent as many aspects of the diverse community and their needs as possible within the team, and the diverse
nature of the team also creates the innovation from which we can realise the best solutions.
Like most of engineering, systems engineering was historically not practiced by a diverse group of people.
Therefore, it is necessary to apply the notions of equity (as defined) in order to ensure that the widest range of people
are enabled and empowered to become and develop as systems engineers.
Inclusion (as defined) is about ensuring that the whole (diverse) team is engaged, supported and feels safe and able
to give of their best to the team’s activity. An inclusive team will produce increased productivity and better-quality
outcomes than the alternative. It also provides increased potential for inclusive products because of the greater range
of stakeholder views within the team.
Inclusive Engineering
Inclusive Engineering (Inclusive Engineering, n.d.) is the discipline of ensuring that engineering products and
services are accessible to and inclusive of all users and are as free as possible from discrimination and bias. This
should consider as far as possible all human differences (characteristics of diversity). It is a way of ensuring that
engineering is appropriate, ethical, accessible, and as risk free as possible. The extent to which an engineered system
is inclusive reduces the degree to which adaptation has to be applied to address the needs of people with differences
e.g., differing vision, differing strength or motor functions.
In their enthusiasm for solutions engineers often do not stop to think about whether they have considered all of the
things that impact on their design – and in particular all of the non-technical requirements that are not specified by
the client or potential beneficiary. As a result, proposed solutions often lack the perspectives of people who have not
been involved in their development – and in an industry which is notoriously lacking in diversity – this often means
that they fail to include the perspectives of women, people with disabilities, the ageing population, and those with
other under-represented characteristics.
Figure 3 shows an inclusive engineering framework (ref. 8) which has eight elements, all of which are important
factors for systems engineers to address even if the stated requirements do not cover them.
Figure 3. Inclusive Engineering Framework

(Used with Permission, (Bonfield 2021), http:/ /
www. inceng. org/
[1]
inclusive-engineering-framework. html )
One way that systems engineers can maximise the potential for inclusive and sustainable solutions is to ensure that
DEI considerations are through application of the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015 Technical Processes. Table 1
illustrates the application of Inclusive Engineering these processes.
Table 1. Mapping of the application of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015 Technical Processes to Inclusive
Engineering considerations.
ISO/IEC/IEEE Inclusive Engineering considerations

15288:2015 Technical
Process
Business or Mission • Ensure all stakeholders are identified, both the obvious (beneficial) stakeholders, and those potentially affected by
Analysis the system and the associated project (referred to as “unwilling” stakeholders).
Stakeholder Needs and • Identify stated stakeholder needs and the unstated but necessary needs arising from inclusive design – e.g. access,
Requirements Definition language, disability.
• Use understanding of Sustainable Development Goals, circular economies etc. to inform future-looking discussions
about needs.
System Requirements • Ensure that inclusion considerations result in well-specified requirements drawing on standards and legislation as
Definition necessary.
• Ensure that definition of the System Boundary is informed by its intended and unintended emergent effects on its
wider context.
• Facilitate careful trade-off and option analysis to optimise equitable outcomes.
Architecture Definition • Ensure that all necessary Architecture viewpoints are considered to ensure that inclusion and sustainability factors
can be given due consideration.
• Ensure that Architectures are open to allow future technology adoption where beneficial during the system
lifecycle.
Design Definition • Ensure that technology choices and principles for design evolution are informed by Sustainable Development
Goals, circular economies etc.
System Analysis • Ensure that System Analysis includes the modelling and prediction of inclusive engineering and sustainable
development factors, in particular modelling to understand key emergent outcomes.
Implementation • Ensure that the design team is diverse, properly trained, and understands the principles of diversity, equity,
inclusion, sustainability, circular economy, etc.
Integration • Ensure that the integration process is safe, secure, and environmentally compliant.
Verification • Ensure that planned verification activities fully address all aspects of diversity, equity, and inclusion for all relevant
stakeholders and are safe, secure, and environmentally compliant.
Transition • Ensure that transition plans fully cover all stakeholders and are safe, secure, and environmentally compliant, and
that any temporary/transitional arrangements do not have accidental negative effects on unwilling stakeholders or
the natural environment i.e., there is an equitable transition plan.
Validation • Ensure that that planned validation activities fully address all aspects of diversity, equity, and inclusion for all
relevant stakeholders including indirect/unwilling stakeholders and the natural environment and are safe, secure,
and environmentally compliant.
Operations • Ensure that selection and training for operations staff is sufficient that a diverse group of operators can correctly
operate all aspects of the system such that the system remains safe, secure, and environmentally compliant.
Maintenance • Ensure that selection and training for maintenance staff is sufficient that a diverse group of maintainers can
correctly operate all aspects of the system such that the system remains safe, secure, and environmentally
compliant.
• Ensure that planned maintenance ensures that the system fully meets its initial specification throughout its service
life e.g., energy use, emissions, pollution.
Disposal • Ensure that selection and training for disposal staff is sufficient that a diverse group of staff can correctly dispose of
hazardous materials such that the system remains safe, secure, and environmentally compliant.
• Ensure that disposal of hazardous materials is carefully planned, and that recycling and reuse opportunities are
maximised.
References
Works Cited
ABET. 2020. "Diversity, equity, and inclusion." Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).
Available: https://www.abet.org/about-abet/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/.Accessed December 31, 2020.
Bonfield, D. 2020. "Inclusive engineering framework." Inclusive Engineering. Available: http:/ / www. inceng. org/
inclusive-engineering-framework.html [1]. Accessed December 31, 2020.
Harding, A. and A. Pickard. "Towards a more diverse INCOSE." INCOSE INSIGHT Practitioner Magazine. 22(3).
Oct 2019.
Hunt, V., S. Prince, S. Dixon-Fyle, and L. Yee. 2018. “Delivering Through Diversity.” Report, McKinsey &
Company. https:/ / www. mckinsey. com/ ~/ media/ McKinsey/ Business%20Functions/ Organization/
Our%20Insights/Delivering%20through%20diversity/Delivering-through-diversity_full-report.ashx
INCOSE. 2020. "Definition of systems engineering." https:/ / www. incose. org/ about-systems-engineering/
about-systems-engineering Accessed 31 Dec 2020.
Inclusive Engineering. n.d. "Inclusive engineering." Available: http:/ / www. inceng. org/ . Accessed December 31,
2020.
National Academy of Engineering. 2002. "Diversity in Engineering: Managing the Workforce of the Future."
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10377
Royal Academy of Engineering. 2015. “Increasing Diversity and Inclusion in Engineering–A Case Study Toolkit.”
Case study, Royal Academy of Engineering. https:/ / www. raeng. org. uk/ policy/ diversity-in-engineering/
diversity-inclusion-toolkit-re-sources/documents/increasing-diversity-and-inclusion-in-engi-neering.
Primary References
None.
None.

References
[1] http:/ / www. inceng. org/ inclusive-engineering-framework. html
Technical Leadership in Systems Engineering

Lead Author: Heidi Davidz
Leadership is an important but often overlooked component of technical projects and programs. It addresses the
performance of people: their behaviors, their ability to think individually and collectively, and their motivation and
energy. Technical leadership in systems engineering creates the environmental conditions conducive to good
performance: support of shared understanding, innovation, problem solving, resilience and learning. Leadership is
thus complementary to management, which directs specific activities to deliver outputs. A systems engineering
leader may lead a team of systems engineers for a project or program, or may be the only systems engineer in a team
of diverse members involved in project or program (e.g. other engineers, IT personnel, service providers). There are
various models and styles of leadership and key to success is matching leadership to the needs of a situation.
‘‘‘Models’’’ of leadership describe the mechanisms by which leadership arises and operates (e.g. situationally-driven
or caused by a charismatic individual). ‘’’Styles’’’ of leadership describe the manner in which a leader (or a leadership
team) leads (e.g. task-focused or people-focused; autocratic, democratic or “laissez-faire” (Lewin et al., 1939)).
There is a vast amount of literature addressing leadership issues from multiple points of view, including
philosophical, psychological and emotional considerations (Yukl, 2012). This article highlights key aspects of
leadership theory to help systems engineers understand how they may influence the success of their team and
organization. Leadership theory provides the basic building blocks for adapting leadership behaviors at work. The
pragmatic aspects of leading team members involved in systems engineering are summarized in section 1.11. This
section highlights the need to use different approaches to leadership across the systems engineering context, and it is
therefore important be able to understand and adopt the leadership behaviors discussed in the preceding sections, as
judged appropriate. Related knowledge areas and articles are in the Part 5 Knowledge Area Part 5 Enabling Systems
Engineering and the Part 6 Knowledge Area Systems Engineering and Project Management.
Attributes of Effective Leaders
Traditional Attitudes to Technical Leadership

The need for leadership in an engineering environment has not been widely emphasized or understood. Traditional
academic engineering curricula do not cover the development of leadership skills, and industry professionals tend to
be task-oriented, with project leaders perceived in terms of power and authority (Toor and Ofori, 2008). In many
cases, technical organizations focus on management rather than leadership. “Managers are people who do things
right while leaders are people who do the right thing” (Bennis and Nanus, 1985). Doing the right thing is not only
about identifying the right approach in the first place; it is also about taking responsibility for understanding and
challenging the progression of a project or program in a continuous manner. It is now recognized that leadership is a
critical component of successful projects and programs, and that technical leadership is likely to be a distributed
responsibility.
Great Man Theories: Traits and Charisma Models of Leadership

Early concepts of leadership were driven by views of leaders as heroic figures, with particular qualities that made
them different to other people. The notion of “charisma” was used to describe the ability to charm and influence
followers. Numerous studies have been conducted to try and define the particular personality traits that made
someone a born leader. The findings are not clear-cut, partly because there are many different models of personality
which produce different results (Hippocrates first identified 4 personality dimensions in the 5th Century BC, and
many different conceptualizations have been devised since then). Personality tests should be used with great caution
because each test has been developed for specific purposes and contexts, and is only valid within those parameters.
For tests to be valid they must undergo a strict set of tests with extensive data sets, and then they must be used
exactly as specified by the validation process. The current best consensus of evidence is that there are 5 main
dimensions of personality: ‘’’Extraversion’’’ (talkative, sociable); ‘’’Agreeableness’’’ (good natured, co-operative);
‘’’Conscientiousness’’’ (responsible, tidy); ‘’’Neuroticism’’’ (general level of anxiety or composure); and ‘’’Openness’’’
(to new experiences). This 5-Factor model has good validity across literate populations, but even this model may not
be universal (Gurven at al., 2013). There is some evidence that extraversion is associated with leadership roles, but
this is not always a predictor of success, and may reflect a cultural stereotype which leads to people who behave like
leaders being more likely to get leadership roles. Different contexts will change the value of extraversion (and other
traits) in a leader. (See Judge et al. (2002) for a meta-analysis of the literature).
In business settings, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality test is often used as part of guided
discussions to assist with self-development (although it lacks the important personality dimension of ‘neuroticism’).
People can use their MBTI profiles to help them use their strengths more effectively. Occasionally, MBTI is misused
as a basis for selection, especially for leadership roles. The evidence indicates this is not justified (National Research
Council, 1991).
Transactional and Transformational Leadership Styles

Certain behaviors have been associated with successful leadership. These behaviors arise from the style of leadership
and particularly the attention paid to the task compared to team relationships. Such differences are described as
transactional and transformational styles (Burns, 1978). Transactional leadership is closely allied to management,
focused on defined task outputs and incentivizing people to follow directions by rewarding and punishing.
Transformational leadership is concerned with achieving outcomes through the development of the people (team
building), building trust, developing a shared vision, motivation, cultivating relationships and sharing knowledge.
Both types of leadership have value, but transformational leadership is needed for developing the culture of an
organization, and for ensuring qualities such as safety, adaptability, learning and improvement. It is usually
considered the most valuable form of leadership.
Understanding that different styles have value for different situations provides the basis for leadership models that
recognize the interactions between style and situation. Fiedler’s Contingency Model, Hersey et al.’s Situational
Model and House’s Path-Goal Theory (all described below) provide useful variations on this approach.
Contingency Model of leadership

Fielder’s Contingency Model (1964) states that there is no one best style of leadership. Effectiveness is about the
match between leadership style (defined as task or relationship-oriented) and situation (defined by: the degree to
which the leader is supported by the group; the degree to which the task is clearly structured; and the degree to which
the leader can reward and punish team members). Fiedler devised a way of assessing leaders’ styles by measuring
their attitude to their ‘least preferred co-worker’ or LPC. In general terms, leaders who are more negative about their
LPC are task-oriented and focus on organizing. Leaders who are more positive towards their LPCs are more able to
avoid conflict, promote innovation and learning and are better at making complex decisions. In moderate situations
(not extreme in any of the three situation dimensions), the more positive, relationship-oriented leaders appear to be
more successful (Valle & Avella, 2003). This contingency model of leadership was found to predict leadership style
in an information systems engineering environment, where leadership functions were distributed across technical
experts and the end-user (Franz, 1985).
Situational Theory
Situational Theory offers a model of leadership in which any individual leader adapts his or her style according to
the needs of the situation. For example, they can learn to change from being task-focused to being relationship
focused. They may also adapt according to their own changing status. Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson (2001)
describe four modes that leaders can adapt between, according to the nature of the members of the team or
organization: delegating, supporting, coaching, and directing. In this situational model, leadership is a learned skill
based on understanding context and self-awareness.
Path-Goal Model
The Path-Goal Theory describes the leader’s role as helping followers to develop behaviors that allow them to
achieve their goals (House and Mitchell, 1974). Leaders are facilitators for others’ achievements, e.g. providing
resources, associations, knowledge and support. Leaders are members of a community of practice united in a
common enterprise and sharing a common culture: history, values, ways of doing things, and ways of talking (Drath
and Palus, 1994). In technical leadership, this means helping technical followers to perform effectively in their tasks,
and in systems engineering this means facilitating pathways of communication between different areas, encouraging
attitudes and behaviors that promote integrated perspectives.
Authentic Leadership
Somewhat in contrast to the principle of leading by adapting style, and thus in effect “acting the part”, research on
leaders being “authentic” evaluates the effectiveness of staying true to one’s own natural style. Successful authentic
leaders are described as positive, leading from the heart, concerned with ethics, building on trust, motivating people
to achieve challenging tasks. According to the authentic leadership literature (e.g., Gardner et al., 2011; Walumbwa
et al., 2008), authentic leaders display four types of behaviors. These include balanced processing (taking evidence
from all sides), internalized moral perspective (driven more by morality than external pressures), relational
transparency (openly sharing thoughts and feelings), and self-awareness (understanding of self and how others view
them) (Gardner et al., 2011). These behaviors are likely to lead to a team having trust in the leader, which will be
important in a technical context where safely achieving the right outcome= in a complex situation is paramount.
Allied to authentic leadership in terms of behaviors is the concept of Servant Leadership, described as having seven
key practices: self-awareness; listening; inverting the pyramid (leadership hierarchy); developing your colleagues;
coaching, not controlling; unleashing the energy and intelligence of others; and foresight. Keith (2012), and Sipe and
Frick (2009) have a similar list: servant leaders are individuals of character, put people first, are skilled
communicators, are compassionate collaborators, use foresight, are systems thinkers, and exercise moral authority.
The servant leadership elements of Empowerment, Standing Back / Sharing Credit, Courage / Risk Taking,
Humility, Authenticity, and Stewardship were shown to have a statistically significant correlation with innovation
output from engineering teams when applied at a frontline team leadership level (McCleave and Capella, 2015).
Complexity Leadership and the Leadership Process

Authentic and servant leadership styles place a leader in the role of a facilitator, rather than a director; someone who
can leverage the capabilities of the team and create synergistic benefits. This perspective is taken a step further in the
model of leadership that comes from complexity theory.
Complexity Leadership describes leadership as promoting emergent adaptive outcomes from organizations (such as
learning and innovation). Organizations are considered to be complex adaptive systems and leadership can take three
forms: administrative, adaptive and enabling. Each form will vary itself according to its locus in an organizational
hierarchy. The complex adaptive functions provide the adaptive capability while the bureaucratic functions provide
the coordinating structures. Leadership should disentangle these two types of functions in a way that enhances the
effectiveness of the organization (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). In this model, leadership is mostly about developing
interactions.
Complexity leadership is differentiated from leaders as individuals, because in some cases leadership is about a
function rather than a person. In a technical situation such as a Systems Engineering team, this will be an important
consideration, as different people will have technical expertise and will be required to provide leadership in areas
such as understanding, challenging and communicating. Systems engineering teams consist of members from diverse
disciplines with diverse interests. Silos of self-interest must be broken down (or at least effective communication
among silos must be established and a balance between global system concerns and provincial disciplinary interests
must be maintained.)
Manz and Sims (1989) also see leadership as a process, but they focus on self-leadership within each individual more
than the behaviors and actions of a few select people designated as formal leaders in an organization. With this
perspective, most people have some contribution to leadership.
Followership
Equally important is the concept of followership. A leader can only lead with effective followers. In technical
situations, where a distributed process of leadership may be needed, this is especially important. The study of
followership is much less developed than that of leadership, although they are two sides of the same coin. Uhl-Bien
et al. (2014) have conducted a review of the literature to date and identify two theoretical frameworks for
understanding followership: a role-based approach and a process approach. They warn against too much focus on a
leader role and not enough on the leadership process, and suggest that understanding followership can help with:
• Recognizing the importance of follower roles, following behaviors, and the leadership process
• Understanding leadership processes and its outcomes as a function of leaders and followers
• Identifying effective followership behaviors
• Embedding context in the leadership process
• Recognizing that leadership can flow in all directions
• Understanding why and how managers are not always able to co-construct leadership with their subordinates
• Developing followership
This perspective is supportive of a distributed leadership function and is helpful for supporting people who have
leadership roles as a consequence of their technical knowledge rather than their desire to lead or comfort with doing
so.
Associated with followership development is the nature of motivation within the individuals that the leader wishes to
influence. The term “motivation” has been used to describe a range of possible causes of behavior, and no single
theory can explain all situations. A useful distinction, however, is the difference between “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”
motivation. The former relates to factors arising from emotions, ambitions, expectations and other internal states of
an individual, and tends to be the focus of transformational leaders (see section 1.3). The latter relates to factors
arising from external factors such as threats, rewards, and social pressure, and tends to be the focus of transactional
leaders (also in section 1.3). It is important to recognize that there are cultural and professional differences in the
strength of internal and external causes of motivation. One famous model of motivation by Maslow (1943), the
“Hierarchy of Needs”, is useful to assess a range of potential factors, but does not have scientific validity and is based
on a rather narrow Western 20th Century perspective. For example, it does not explain why people are willing to
undergo physical hardship to conquer higher level challenges; or why some cultures are collectivist while others are
individualistic. (A useful review of these culture differences can be found in Triandis et al., 1988).
A more actionable approach to motivation emphasizes an individual’s mental model of what is important (valence),
what their own role is in achieving it (instrumentality), and how able they are to achieve it (expectancy). This was
first described by Vroom (1964) and has led to the concept of ‘empowering’ individuals (e.g. Conger and Kanungo,
1988). The Path-Goal model of leadership (section 1.6) aims to facilitate performance by addressing these aspects of
motivation. This approach to motivation, called Expectancy Theory, can help leaders understand how to motivate
employees through challenge and self-belief (Isaac, Zerbe, and Pitt, (2001).
An attempt to understand motivation at the organizational level has led to the concept of “organizational energy”
(Cole, Bruch and Vogel, 2005). According to the existing overall energy type in an organization, a leader should
adopt a different motivational strategy to achieve the optimum “productive” energy, which is described as high
intensity and positive. A resignative energy (low intensity, negative) requires the development of a vision,
empowerment and challenge. A corrosive energy (high intensity, negative) requires better communication and the
development of trust. A comfortable energy (low intensity, positive) requires the identification of an external threat.
Competencies
Leadership competencies are the knowledge and skills required by individuals and teams for making leadership
effective. Sometimes traits and other individual differences are added to skills and knowledge to create a
“Competency Framework” for the leadership characteristics needed for a role. Communication, managing staff by
supporting and providing feedback, and emotional competence are often featured in these frameworks. It is
important to distinguish between those characteristics that are learned and those that are based on traits. Learned
competencies can be enhanced through personal development; innate individual differences could be acquired for a
role through personnel selection (although selection based on personality is not recommended: see section 1.2). As
indicated above, leadership depends on many behaviors, including matching style to situations, effective
followership, and individual leadership.
A number of roles will be required in a team, and ideally these may be distributed to individuals with the apposite
competencies. Emotional competence has been the focus of much recent research and some studies show a strong
correlation with effective leadership (e.g. Cavallo and Brienza, 2006, who used the Emotional Competence
Inventory©).
Daniel Goleman has extended and publicized the concept of emotional intelligence (an innate characteristic) and the
competencies (skills that can be learned) that put it into practice. He describes how emotional aptitudes can preserve
relationships, protect our health and improve our success at work (Goleman, 1998).
Goleman differentiates 5 main categories of competence. The first three are about self-management and the last two
are about being effective in relationships.
1. Self-awareness: accurate self-assessment, emotional awareness and self-confidence
2. Self-regulation: innovation, adaptability, conscientiousness, trustworthiness and self-control
3. Motivation: optimism, commitment, initiative and achievement, drive
4. Empathy: developing others, service orientation, political awareness, diversity, active listening and understanding
others
5. Social skills: communication, influence, conflict management, leadership, bond building, collaboration,
cooperation and team capabilities
Emotional Intelligence is most associated with transformational and situational leadership.
Communication skills are also highlighted in most leader competency frameworks. These skills are about
communicating to other people and listening and being communicated to by other people. Some skills are about
engagement, others about sharing understanding. In particular, avoiding hidden assumptions and understanding
others’ perspectives are important. Communication can take place in many ways, especially with the help of IT and
social media. Each mode of communication has advantages and disadvantages. Consideration should be given to
how important it is to have face-to-face communication (usually better, but especially for complex matters and when
emotions are involved). Although this takes more time and effort, it will often save time and effort in the long term
by reducing misunderstandings and negative emotions. Nikoi (2014) presents a collection of studies that investigated
the way in which communication works across media and teams.
Communication may be synchronous or asynchronous, broadcast or individual, dialogue or one-way. Bowman
(2004) has a useful summary of the advantages and disadvantages of different communication channels.
Some competencies that are often associated in the literature with good leadership are listed in Table 1. The
relevance of these will depend on the style and the situation/context.
Some commonly cited attributes of effective leaders are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Attributes of Effective Leaders (Fairley 2009).

Reprinted with permission of the IEEE Computer Society. All other rights are reserved by
Listening carefully Maintaining enthusiasm
Delegating authority Saying “thank you”
Facilitating teamwork Praising team for achievements
Coordinating work activities Accepting responsibility for shortcomings
Facilitating communication Coaching and training
Making timely decisions Indoctrinating newly assigned personnel
Involving appropriate stakeholders Reconciling differences and resolving conflicts
Speaking with individual team members on a frequent basis Helping team members develop career paths and achieve professional
goals
Working effectively with the project/program manager and external Reassigning, transferring, and terminating personnel as necessary
stakeholders
Characteristics that result in effective leadership of systems engineering activities include behavioral attributes,
leadership style, and communication style. In addition, a team leader for a systems engineering project or program
has management responsibilities that include, but are not limited to: developing and maintaining the systems
engineering plan, and establishing and overseeing the relationships between the project/program manager and
project/program management personnel.
Implications for technical leadership in systems engineering

Leadership can have a significant impact on engineering performance (Kolb, 1995) and resilience (Flin, 2006). The
models and styles of leadership described above emphasize the power of social skills: the ability to relate to and
connect with other people. This appears to be particularly true for the sorts of situations that system engineering
leaders are likely to find themselves in: working on complex problems with other professionals who are willing to
follow but need to be confident in the leader’s technical skill and trustworthiness. The technical leader should
possess not only essential technical knowledge but should also have positive values, high levels of ethics, morality,
leadership from the heart, personal capabilities, out-of-the-box thinking, interpersonal skills, etc. (Lloyd-Walker and
Walker, 2011).
In a systems engineering context it is useful to recognize that different leadership functions may be distributed across
a team. Some leadership functions will be knowledge focused, but it may be necessary to have a ‘facilitator’
(complexity) leader to ensure that the team follows the most appropriate leadership at any time. Each organization
will have particular leadership requirements, which should be articulated in a behavioral framework in order to
identify the most effective leadership styles and competencies, and where and how they should be applied.
Leadership capability for systems engineers should therefore be seen as a distributed capability to be developed
across engineers. NASA takes a systems approach to developing leadership in their Systems Engineering Leadership
Development Program (SELDP). They define technical leadership as the ‘art’ of systems engineering. Technical
leadership includes broad technical domain knowledge, engineering instinct, problem solving, creativity, and the
leadership and communication skills needed to develop new missions and systems. It focuses on systems design and
technical integrity throughout the life cycle. A system’s complexity and the severity of its constraints drive the need
for systems engineering leadership (Williams and Reyes, 2012).
Selecting leaders by promoting the best technical performers or the most ambitious candidates is not an effective
way of ensuring good leadership in an organization or program. For this reason, companies such as General Electric,
Motorola, Toyota, Unilever, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman use internal leadership academies to develop their
leadership capability according to their needs (Daniels, 2009). A role model approach may be effective only if the
appropriate role model is paired with a candidate, with good leadership characteristics that are valid for the situation
(Yukl, 2012).
More effective approaches would involve developing competencies that can be learned through example, experience
and reflection. The most effective methods will depend on the competencies needed, the type of organization, and
the opportunities. They could include coaching, mentoring, shadowing, ‘assistant-to’ trial periods, and career
management to provide experience (e.g. Fast-track).
There must also be an element of self-development: systems engineers should recognize the impact that people (or
‘soft’) issues have on the performance of a technical team and organization and learn how to adjust their own
behavior and facilitate the behavior of others.
Behavioral Attributes
Behavioral attributes are habitual patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion that remain stable over time (Yukl
2013). Positive behavioral attributes enable a systems engineering leader to communicate effectively and to make
sound decisions, while also taking into consideration the concerns of all stakeholders. Desirable behavioral attributes
for a systems engineering leader include characteristics such as (Fairley 2009):
• Aptitude - This is exhibited by the ability to effectively lead a team. Leadership aptitude is not the same as
knowledge or skill but rather is indicative of the ability (either intuitive or learned) to influence others. Leadership
aptitude is sometimes referred to as charisma or as an engaging style.
• Initiative - This is exhibited by enthusiastically starting and following through on every leadership activity.
• Enthusiasm - This is exhibited by expressing and communicating a positive, yet realistic attitude concerning the
project, product, and stakeholders.
• Communication Skills - These are exhibited by expressing concepts, thoughts, and ideas in a clear and concise
manner, in oral and written forms, while interacting with colleagues, team members, managers, project
stakeholders, and others.
• Team Participation - This is exhibited by working enthusiastically with team members and others when
collaborating on shared work activities.
• Negotiation - This is the ability to reconcile differing points of view and achieve consensus decisions that are
satisfactory to the involved stakeholders.
• Goal Orientation – This involves setting challenging but not impossible goals for oneself, team members, and
teams.
• Trustworthiness - This is demonstrated over time by exhibiting ethical behavior, honesty, integrity, and
dependability in taking actions and making decisions that affect others.
Weakness, on the other hand, is one example of a behavioral attribute that may limit the effectiveness of a systems
engineering team leader.
Personality Traits
The concept of “personality traits” was initially introduced in the early 1900's by Carl Jung, who published a theory
of personality based on three continuums: introversion-extroversion, sensing-intuiting, and thinking-feeling.
According to Jung, each individual has a dominant style which includes an element from each of the three
continuums. Jung also emphasized that individuals vary their personality traits in the context of different situations;
however, an individual’s dominant style is the preferred one, as it is the least stressful for the individual to express
and it is also the style that an individual will resort to when under stress (Jung 1971). The Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI), developed by Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers, includes Jung’s three continuums,
plus a fourth continuum of judging-perceiving. These four dimensions characterize 16 personality styles for
individuals designated by letters, such as ISTP (Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, and Perceiving). An individual’s
personality type indicator is determined through the answers the person has provided on a questionnaire (Myers
1995) combined with the individual’s self-assessment which is done one to one with a qualified practitioner or in a
group setting. MBTI profiles are widely used by coaches and counselors to help individuals assess how their
personality type will affect how they might react in a particular profession and make suggestions about which
professions might suit their individual preferences. It should never be used to decide which profession would be
"most comfortable and effective” as the MBTI measures preference not ability. The MBTI has also been applied to
group dynamics and leadership styles. Most studies indicate that groups perform better when a mixture of personality
styles work together to provide different perspectives. Some researchers claim that there is evidence that suggests
that leadership styles are most closely related to an individual’s position on the judging-perceiving scale of the MBTI
profile (Hammer 2001). Those on the judging side of the scale are more likely to be “by the book” managers, while
those on the perceiving side of the scale are most likely to be “people-oriented” leaders. “Judging” in the MBTI
model does not mean judgmental; rather, a judging preference indicates a quantitative orientation and a perceiving
preference indicates a qualitative orientation. The MBTI has its detractors (Nowack 1996); however, MBTI
personality styles can provide insight into effective and ineffective modes of interaction and communication among
team members and team leaders. For example, an individual with a strongly Introverted, Thinking, Sensing, and
Judging personality index (ITSJ) may have difficulty interacting with an individual who has a strongly Extroverted,
Intuiting, Feeling, Perceiving personality index (ENFP).
Leadership Styles and Communication Styles

There is a vast amount of literature pertaining to leadership styles and there are many models of leadership. Most of
these leadership models are based on some variant of Jung’s psychological types. One of the models, the Wilson
Social Styles, integrates leadership styles and communication styles (Wilson 2004). The Wilson model characterizes
four kinds of leadership styles:
• Driver leadership style - This is exhibited when a leader focuses on the work to be accomplished and on
specifying how others must do their jobs.
• Analytical-style leadership - This emphasizes collecting, analyzing, and sharing data and information. An
analytical leader asks others for their opinions and recommendations to gather information.
• Amiable leadership style – This is characterized by emphasis on personal interactions and on asking others
for their opinions and recommendations.
• Expressive leadership style – Like the amiable style, this also focuses on personal relationships, but an
expressive leader tells others rather than asking for opinions and recommendations. When taken to extremes, each of
these styles can result in weakness of leadership. By focusing too intently on the work, "drivers" can provide too
much or too little guidance and direction. Too little guidance occurs when the individual is preoccupied with her or
his personal work, while too much guidance results in micromanagement, which limits the personal discretion for
team members. Drivers may also be insensitive to interpersonal relationships with team members and others.
Analytical leaders may provide too much information or may fail to provide information that is obvious to them, but
not their team members. They do not like to discuss things they already know or that are irrelevant to the task at
hand. Like driver-style leaders, they may be insensitive to interpersonal relationships with other individuals. Amiable
leaders focus on interpersonal relationships in order to get the job done. They may exhibit a dislike of those who fail
to interact with them on a personal level and may show little concern for those who show little personal interest in
them. Expressive leaders also focus on interpersonal relationships. In the extreme, an expressive leader may be more
interested in stating their opinions than in listening to others. Additionally, they may play favorites and ignore those
who are not favorites. While these characterizations are gross oversimplifications, they serve to illustrate leadership
styles that may be exhibited by systems engineering team leaders. Effective team leaders are able to vary their
leadership style to accommodate the particular context and the needs of their constituencies without going to
extremes; but as emphasized by Jung, each individual has a preferred comfort zone that is least stressful and to
which an individual will resort during times of added pressure.
Communication Styles
An additional characterization of the Wilson model is the preferred style of communication for different leadership
styles, which is illustrated by the dimensions of assertiveness and responsiveness.
Figure 1. Dimensions of Communication Styles (Fairley 2009). Reprinted with permission of the IEEE Computer Society. All other rights are
Task-oriented assertiveness is exhibited in a communication style that emphasizes the work to be done rather than
the people who will do the work, while the people-oriented communication style addresses personnel issues first and
tasks secondly. A tell-oriented communication style involves telling rather than asking, while an ask-oriented
assertiveness emphasizes asking over telling. Movies, plays, and novels often include caricatures of extremes in the
assertiveness and responsiveness dimensions of Wilson communication styles. An individual’s communication style
may fall anywhere within the continuums of assertiveness and responsiveness, from extremes to more moderate
styles and may vary considering the situation. Examples include:
• Driver communication style exhibits task-oriented responsiveness and tell-oriented assertiveness.
• Expressive communication style shares tell-oriented assertiveness with the driver style but favors people-oriented
responsiveness.
• Amiable communication style involves asking rather than telling (as does the analytical style) and emphasizes
people relationships over task orientation (as does the expressive style).
• Analytical communication style exhibits task-oriented responsiveness and ask-oriented assertiveness.
The most comfortable communication occurs when individuals share the same communication styles or share
adjacent quadrants in Figure 1. Difficult communication may occur when individuals are in diagonal quadrants; for
example, communication between an extreme amiable style and an extreme driver style. Technical leaders and others
can improve communications by being aware of different communication styles (both their own and others) and by
modifying their communication style to accommodate the communication styles of others.
Management Responsibilities
Leading a systems engineering team involves communicating, coordinating, providing guidance, and maintaining
progress and morale. Managing a project, according to the PMBOK® Guide (PMBOK 2013), involves application of
the five process groups of project management: initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and
closing. Colloquially, systems engineering project/program management is concerned with making and updating
plans and estimates, providing resources, collecting and analyzing product and process data, working with the
technical leader to control work processes and work products, as well as managing the overall schedule and budget.
Good engineering managers are not necessarily good technical leaders and good technical leaders are not necessarily
good engineering managers; the expression of different personality traits and skill sets is required. Those who are
effective as both managers and leaders have both analytical and interpersonal skills, although their comfort zone may
be in one of managing or leading. Two management issues that are typically the responsibility of a systems
engineering team leader are:
• Establishing and maintaining the division of responsibility among him or herself, the systems engineering team
leader, and the project/program manager.
• Developing, implementing, and maintaining the systems engineering plan (SEP).
Relationships between systems engineering and project management are addressed in the Part 6 Knowledge Area
(KA) of the SEBoK, Systems Engineering and Project Management. Also see the Part 5 Knowledge Area Enabling
Teams for a discussion of the relationships between a project/program manager and a systems engineering technical
leader.
The System Engineering Plan (SEP) is, or should be, the highest-level plan for managing the Systems Engineering
effort and the technical aspects of a project or program. It defines how a project will be organized and conducted in
terms of both performing and controlling the Systems Engineering activities needed to address a project's system
requirements and technical content. It can have a number of secondary technical plans that provide details on
specific technical areas and supporting processes, procedures, tools. Also, see the Planning article in Part 3, which
includes a section on Systems Engineering Planning Process Overview.
In United States DoD acquisition programs, the System Engineering Plan (SEP) is a Government produced
document which assists in the development, communication, and management of the overall systems engineering
(SE) approach that guides all technical activities of the program. It provides direction to developers for program
execution. The developer uses the SEP as guidance for producing the System Engineering Management Plan
(SEMP), which is a separate document and usually a contract deliverable that aligns with the SEP. As the SEP is a
Government produced and maintained document and the SEMP is a developer/contractor developed and maintained
document, the SEMP is typically a standalone, coordinated document.
The following SEP outline from (ODASD 2011) serves as an example.
1. Introduction – Purpose and Update Plan
2. Program Technical Requirements
1. Architectures and Interface Control
2. Technical Certifications
3. Engineering Resources and Management
1. Technical Schedule and Schedule Risk Assessment
2. Engineering Resources and Cost/Schedule Reporting
3. Engineering and Integration Risk Management
4. Technical Organization
5. Relationships with External Technical Organizations
6. Technical Performance Measures and Metrics
4. Technical Activities and Products
1. Results of Previous Phase SE Activities

2. Planned SE Activities for the Next Phase
3. Requirements Development and Change Process
4. Technical Reviews
5. Configuration and Change Management Process
6. Design Considerations
7. Engineering Tools
5. Annex A – Acronyms
SEP templates are often tailored to meet the needs of individual projects or programs by adding needed elements and
modifying or deleting other elements. A systems engineering team leader typically works with other team members,
the project/program manager (or management team), and other stakeholders to develop the SEP and maintain
currency of the plan as a project evolves. Some organizations provide one or more SEP templates and offer guidance
for developing and maintaining an SEP. Some organizations have a functional group that can provide assistance in
developing the SEP.
References
Works Cited
Bennis, W.G. and Nanus, B. 1985. ‘’Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge.’’ New York, NY, USA: Harper & Row.
Bowman 2004. ‘’Business Communication: Managing Information and Relationships.’’ Available at: https:/ /
homepages.wmich.edu/~bowman/channels.html.
Burns, J.M. 1978. ‘’Leadership’’. New York, NY, USA: Harper & Row.
Cavallo, K. and Brienza, D. 2006. “Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson,” ‘’The
Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Study, Europe’s Journal of Psychology’’, Vol.2, No 1.
Cole, M. S., H. Bruch, & B. Vogel. 2005. “Development and validation of a measure of organizational energy.”
Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings. In Weaver, K. M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixty-fourth Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management (CD), ISSN 1543-8643.
Conger, J.A. and R.N. Kanungo. 1988. “The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice,” ‘’The Academy
of Management Review,’’ Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 471-482.
Daniels, C. B. 2009. “Improving leadership in a technical environment: A case example of the ConITS leadership
institute,” ‘’Engineering Management Journal,’’ 21, pp. 47-52.
Drath, W. H., and C.J. Palus. 1994. ‘’Making Common Sense: Leadership as Meaning-Making in a Community of
Practice.’’ Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Fairley, R.E. 2009. ‘’Managing and Leading Software Projects.’’ Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Fiedler, F. E. 1964. “A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness,” ‘’Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology,’’ 1, 149–190.
Flin, R. 2006. “Erosion of Managerial Resilience: From Vasa to NASA.” In Hollnagel, E. Woods, D.D., and
Levenson, N. (Eds), ‘’Resilience Engineering Concepts and Precepts,’’ pp. 223-233. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Franz, C. R. 1985. “User Leadership in the Systems Development Life Cycle: A Contingency Model.” ‘’Journal of
Management Information Systems,’’ 2 (2), 5-25
Frick, D. 2009. ‘’Seven Pillars of Servant Leadership: Practicing the Wisdom of Leading by Serving,’’ New Jersey:
Paulist Press.
Gardner, W.L., C.C. Cogliser, K.M. Daviss, & M.P. Dickens. 2011. “Authentic leadership: A review of the literature
and research agenda.” ‘’Leadership Quarterly,’’ 22, 1120-1145
Goleman D. 1998. “The emotionally competent leader.” ‘’Health Forum Journal,’’ 41(2), 38- 76
Gurven, M., C. Von Rueden,, and C. Kaplan, M.L. Vie, 2013. “How Universal Is the Big Five? Testing the
Five-Factor Model of Personality Variation Among Forager–Farmers in the Bolivian Amazon,” ‘’Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,’’ Vol. 104, No. 2, 354–370.
Hersey, P., K.H. Blanchard, and D.E. Johnson. 2001. ‘’Management of Organisational Behaviour Leading Human
Resources.’’ NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Herzberg, F., B. Mausnek,and B. Snyderman. 1959. ‘’The Motivation to Work (Second Edition).’’ New York, New
York, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
House, R. J., and R.R. Mitchell 1974. “Path-goal theory of leadership.”
‘’Journal of Contemporary Business,’’ 3(4), pp. 81-98.
Isaac, R. G., W.J. Zerbe,, & D.C Pitt. 2001. “Leadership and motivation: The effective application of expectancy
theory.” ‘’Journal of Managerial Issues,’’ 13(2), 212-226.
Judge, T. A., J.Y. Bono, R. Ilies, & M.W. Gerhardt. 2002. “Personality
and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review.” ‘’Journal of Applied
Psychology,’’ 87, 765–780.
Keith, K. 2012. ‘’The Case for Servant-Leadership,’’ Honolulu, Hawaii: Terrace Press, Second Edition.
Kolb, J. A. 1995. “Leader behaviours affecting team performance: Similarities and differences between
leader/member assessments.” ‘’Journal of Business Communication,’’ 32, 233-248.
Lewin, K., R. LIippit. and R.K. White. 1939. “Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social
climates.” ‘’Journal of Social Psychology,’’ 10, 271-301.
Lloyd-Walker, B. and D. Walker. 2011. “Authentic leadership for 21st century project delivery, ‘’International
Journal of Project Management,’’ 29, pp 383-395.
Sipe, J. and D. Frick. 2009. ‘’The Seven Pillars of Servant Leadership: Practicing the Wisdom of Leading by Serving.
Mahwah, NJ, USA: Paulist Press.
Triandis, H.C., R. Bontempo, , M.J. Villareal, M. Asai, and N. Lucca. 1988. “Individualism and collectivism:
Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships,” ‘’Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,’’ Vol.54,
No. 2. 323-338.
Manz, C. C., and H.P. Sims Jr. 1989. ‘’Superleadership: Leading Others to Leave Themselves’’. New York, NY,
USA: Prentice Hall Press.
McCleave, E. B., and U. Capella. 2015. “A correlational analysis of frontline leaders as drivers of technical
innovation in the aerospace industry based on the servant leadership theory.”
‘’US Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,’’ Vol 75(8-A)(E).
Marion, R., and M. Uhl-Bien. 2001. “Leadership in complex organizations,” ‘’The Leadership Quarterly,’’ 12, pp.
389–418.
Maslow, A.H. 1943. “A theory of human motivation,” ‘’Psychological Review,‘’ 50 (4) 370–96.
National Research Council. 1991. ‘’In The Mind's Eye,’’ Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy of Science.
Nikoi, E. (Ed) 2014. ‘’Collaborative Communication Processes and Decision Making in Organizations.’’ Hershey,
PA: Business Science Reference.
Stogdill, R.M. 1948. “Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.” ‘’Journal of
Psychology,’’ Vol. 25.
Toor, S.R. and G. Ofori. 2008. “Leadership vs. management: How they are different, and why!”
‘’Journal of Leadership and Management in Engineering,’’ 8(2), 61- 71.
Uhl-Bien, M., R.E. Riggio, K.B. Lowec, M.K. Carstend. 2014. “Followership theory: A review and research
agenda,” ‘’Leadership Quarterly 25th Anniversary Issue, The Leadership Quarterly,’’ Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages
83–104.
Valle, S., & L. Avella. 2003. “Cross-functionality and leadership of the new product development teams.” ‘’European
Journal of Innovation Management,’’ 6(1), 32 – 47.
Vroom, V.H. 1964. ‘’Work and Motivation.’’ New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Walumba, F.O., B.J. Avolio, W.L. Gardner, T.S. Wernsing, and S.J. Peterson, 2008 “Authentic leadership:
Development and validation of a theory-based measure,” ‘’Journal of Management,’’ 34:1, pp. 89-126.
Williams, C.R. and A. Reyes. 2012. ‘’Developing Systems Engineers at NASA Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management,’’ 13(3), 159–164.
Yukl, G.A. 2012. ‘’Leadership in Organizations.’’ 8th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Primary References
Fairley, R.E. 2009. ‘’Managing and Leading Software Projects.’’ Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Myers, I.B., and P.B. Myers. 1995. ‘’Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type,’’ 2nd ed. Mountain View, CA:
Davies-Black Publishing under special license from CPP, Inc.
Wilson, Larry. 2004. ‘’The Social Styles Handbook.’’ Belgium: Nova Vista Publishing.
Barrett, D.J. 2006. ‘’Leadership Communication.’’ Boston: McGraw Hill Education. Bass, B. M., & R. Bass. 2008.
‘’The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications.’’ New York, NY, USA: Free
Press.
Bennis, W. 2003. ‘’On Becoming a Leader.’’ New York, NY, USA: Perseus Publishing.
Northouse, P. G. 2007. ‘’Leadership Theory and Practice.’’ (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & B.J. Avolio. 1994. ‘’Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership.’’
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
Fiedler, F. E. 1964. “A contingency model of leadership effectiveness.” ‘’In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology’’ (Vol. 1). New York, NY, USA: Academic Press.
Lowe, K. B., K.G. Kroeck, & N. Sivasubramaniam. 1996. “Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.” ‘’The Leadership Quarterly,’’ 7(3), 385-415.
Pandya. K. D. 2014. “Key Competencies of Project Leader Beyond the Essential Technical Capabilities,” ‘’IUP
Journal of Knowledge Management,’’ Vol. 12 Issue 4, 39-48.
Ram, C., S. Drotter, and J. Noel. 2001. ‘’The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership Powered Company.’’
San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass (a Wiley Company).

848
Knowledge Area: Enabling Individuals
Enabling Individuals
Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Dick Fairley, Contributing Authors: Alice Squires, Art Pyster
This knowledge area focuses on enabling an individual to perform SE and addresses the roles of individuals in the
SE profession, how individuals are developed for and assessed in these roles, and what ethical behavior is expected
of them. Once an individual is enabled to perform SE using the techniques described here, the individual can apply
the knowledge found in Part 3, Systems Engineering and Management, about how to perform SE.
Part 5, Enabling Systems Engineering, to which this knowledge area belongs, explores how systems engineering
(SE) is enabled at three levels of organization: the business or enterprise, the team, and the individual. Ultimately,
individuals perform SE tasks within a team or business.
For the sake of brevity, the term “business” is used to mean “business or enterprise” throughout most of this
knowledge area. For a nuanced explanation of what distinguishes a business from an enterprise, see Enabling
Topics
Each part of the SEBoK is composed of knowledge areas (KAs]. Each KA groups topics together around a theme
related to the overall subject of the part. This KA contains four topics:
• Roles and Competencies discusses allocation of SE roles, which sets of competencies correspond to particular
roles, and what competency models are current in the SE world.
• Assessing Individuals discusses how to determine the level of individual proficiency and quality of performance.
• Developing Individuals explains how SE competency is acquired.
• Ethical Behavior describes the ethical standards that apply to individuals and organizations.
Context
The following brief review of terms and concepts provides context for the topics in this knowledge area.
Individuals, Teams, Businesses, and Enterprises

The ability to perform SE resides in individuals, teams, and businesses. An expert systems engineer possesses many
competencies at a high level of proficiency, but no one can be highly proficient in all possible competencies.
Collectively, a team and a business might possess all needed competencies at a high level of proficiency. A business
performs the full range of SE roles, may have dedicated functions to perform specific SE roles, and may have a
strategy for combining individual, team, and business abilities to execute SE on a complex activity. Individuals
within the business may be responsible for performing one or more roles.
For descriptions of SE roles and competencies from the literature, see Roles and Competencies.
Enabling Individuals 849
Competency, Capability, Capacity, and Performance

The final execution and performance of SE is a function of competency, capability, and capacity. There is some
complexity here. For example:
• There is disagreement in the literature about whether the term competency applies to the individual level only, or
can be correctly used at the team, project, and enterprise levels as well.
• Capability encompasses not just human capital, but processes, machines, tools, and equipment as well. Even if an
individual has an outstanding level of competency, having to perform within a limited timeframe might degrade
the results. Capacity accounts for this.
Systems Engineering Competency

Competency is built from knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes (KSAA). What is inherent in an individual may
be subsequently developed through education, training, and experience. Traditionally, SE competencies have been
developed primarily through experience, but recently, education and training have taken on a much greater role.
SE competency must be viewed through its relationships to the systems life cycle, the SE discipline, and the domain
in which the engineer practices SE.
Competency Models
SE competency models can be used to explicitly state and actively manage the SE competencies within in an
organization.
Competency models for SE typically include:
• technical KSAAs;
• “soft” KSAAs such as leadership and communications;
• KSAAs that focus on the domains within which SE is to be practiced;
• a set of applicable competencies; and
• a scale for assessing the level of individual proficiency in each competency (often subjective, since proficiency is
not easily measured).
See Roles and Competencies for descriptions of publicly available SE competency models.
References
None.

Roles and Competencies

Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Dick Fairley, Tom Hilburn, Contributing Authors: Alice Squires, Art Pyster
Enabling individuals to perform systems engineering (SE) requires an understanding of SE competencies, roles, and
tasks; plus knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes (KSAA). Within a business or enterprise, SE responsibilities are
allocated to individuals through the definition of SE roles associated with a set of tasks. For an individual, a set of
KSAAs enables the fulfillment of the competencies needed to perform the tasks associated with the assigned SE role.
SE competencies reflect the individual’s KSAAs, which are developed through education, training, and on-the-job
experience. Traditionally, SE competencies build on innate personal qualities and have been developed primarily
through experience. Recently, education and training have taken on a greater role in the development of SE
competencies.
Relationship of SE Competencies and KSAAs

There are many ways to define competency. It can be thought of as a measure of the ability to use the appropriate
KSAAs to successfully complete specific job-related tasks (Whitcomb, Khan, White 2014). Competencies align with
the tasks that are expected to be accomplished for the job position (Holt and Perry 2011). KSAAs belong to the
individual. In the process of filling a position, organizations have a specific set of competencies associated with tasks
that are directly related to the job. A person possesses the KSAAs that enable them to perform the desired tasks at an
acceptable level of competency.
The KSAAs are obtained and developed from a combination of several sources of learning including education,
training, and on-the-job experience. By defining the KSAAs in terms of a standard taxonomy, they can be used as
learning objectives for competency development (Whitcomb, Khan, White 2014). Bloom’s Taxonomy for the
cognitive and affective domains provides this structure (Bloom 1956, Krathwohl 2002). The cognitive domain
includes knowledge, critical thinking, and the development of intellectual skills, while the affective domain describes
growth in awareness, attitude, emotion, changes in interest, judgment, and the development of appreciation (Bloom
1956). The affective does not refer to additional topics which a person learns about, but rather to a transformation of
the person in relation to the original set of topics learned. Cognitive and affective processes within Bloom’s
taxonomic classification schema refer to levels of observable actions, which indicate learning is occurring. Bloom’s
Taxonomy for the cognitive and affective domains define terms as categories of levels that can be used for
consistently defining KSAA statements (Krathwohl 2002):
Cognitive Domain:
• Remember
• Understand
• Apply
• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Create
Affective Domain:
• Receive
• Respond
• Value
• Organize
• Characterize
Both cognitive and affective domains should be included in the development of systems engineering competency
models, because the cognitive domain learning concerns the consciously developed knowledge about the various
subjects and the ability to perform tasks, whilst the affective learning concerns the interest in or willingness to use
particular parts of the knowledge learned and the extent to which the systems engineer is characterized by taking
approaches which are inherently systemic. Using the affective domain in the specification of KSAAs, is also
important as every piece of information we process in our brains goes through our affective (emotional) processors
before it is integrated by our cognitive processors (Whitcomb and Whitcomb 2013).
SE Competency Models
Contexts in which individual competency models are typically used include:
• Recruitment and Selection: Competencies define categories for behavioral event interviewing (BEI), increasing
the validity and reliability of selection and promotion decisions.
• Human Resources Planning and Placements: Competencies are used to identify individuals to fill specific
positions and/or identify gaps in key competency areas.
• Education, Training, and Development: Explicit competency models let employees know which competencies
are valued within their organization. Curriculum and interventions can be designed around desired competencies.
Commonality and Domain Expertise

No single individual is expected to be proficient in all the competencies found in any model. The organization,
overall, must satisfy the required proficiency in sufficient quantity to support business needs. Organizational
capability is not a direct summation of the competency of the individuals in the organization, since organizational
dynamics play an important role that can either raise or lower overall proficiency and performance. The articles
Enabling Teams and Enabling Businesses and Enterprises explore this further.
SE competency models generally agree that systems thinking, taking a holistic view of the system that includes the
full life cycle, and specific knowledge of both technical and managerial SE methods are required to be a fully
capable systems engineer. It is also generally accepted that an accomplished systems engineer will have expertise in
at least one domain of practice. General models, while recognizing the need for domain knowledge, typically do not
define the competencies or skills related to a specific domain. Most organizations tailor such models to include
specific domain KSAAs and other peculiarities of their organization.
INCOSE Certification
Certification is a formal process whereby a community of knowledgeable, experienced, and skilled representatives of
an organization, such as the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), provides formal recognition
that a person has achieved competency in specific areas (demonstrated by education, experience, and knowledge).
(INCOSE nd). The most popular credential in SE is offered by INCOSE, which requires an individual to pass a test
to confirm knowledge of the field, requires experience in SE, and recommendations from those who have knowledge
about the individual's capabilities and experience. Like all such credentials, the INCOSE certificate does not
guarantee competence or suitability of an individual for a particular role, but is a positive indicator of an individual's
ability to perform. Individual workforce needs often require additional KSAAs for any given systems engineer, but
certification provides an acknowledged common baseline.
Domain- and Industry-specific Models

No community consensus exists on a specific competency model or small set of related competency models. Many
SE competency models have been developed for specific contexts or for specific organizations, and these models are
useful within these contexts.
Among the domain- and industry-specific models is the Aerospace Industry Competency Model (ETA 2010),
developed by the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) in collaboration with the Aerospace Industries
Association (AIA) and the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), and available online. This model is
designed to evolve along with changing skill requirements in the aerospace industry. The ETA makes numerous
competency models for other industries available online (ETA 2010). The NASA Competency Management System
(CMS) Dictionary is predominately a dictionary of domain-specific expertise required by the US National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to accomplish their space exploration mission (NASA 2009).
Users of models should be aware of the development method and context for the competency model they plan to use,
since the primary competencies for one organization might differ from those for another organization. These models
often are tailored to the specific business characteristics, including the specific product and service domain in which
the organization operates. Each model typically includes a set of applicable competencies along with a scale for
assessing the level of proficiency.
SE Competency Models — Examples

Though many organizations have proprietary SE competency models, published SE competency models can be used
for reference. Table 1 lists information about several published SE competency models, and links to these sources
are shown below in the references section. Each model was developed for a unique purpose within a specific context
and validated in a particular way. It is important to understand the unique environment surrounding each competency
model to determine its applicability in any new setting.
Table 1. Summary of Competency Models. (SEBoK Original)

Competency Model Date Author Purpose Development Method Competency Model
Source
INCOSE UK WG 2010 INCOSE Identify the competencies required to conduct INCOSE Working Group (INCOSE 2010),
good systems engineering (INCOSE UK 2010)
ENG Competency 2013 DAU Identify competencies required for the DoD DoD and DAU internal (DAU 2013)
Model acquisition engineering professional development
NASA APPEL 2009 NASA To improve project management and systems NASA internal development (NASA 2009)
Competency Model engineering at NASA - UPDATE IN WORK
MITRE Competency 2007 MITRE To define new curricula for systems engineering Focus groups as described in (Trudeau 2005),
Model and to assess personnel and organizational (Trudeau 2005) (MITRE 2007)
capabilities
CMMI for 2007 SEI Process improvement maturity model for the SEI Internal Development (SEI 2007), (SEI
Development development of products and services 2004)
Other models and lists of traits include: Hall (1962), Frank (2000; 2002; 2006), Kasser et al. (2009), Squires et al.
(2011), and Armstrong et al. (2011). Ferris (2010) provides a summary and evaluation of the existing frameworks for
personnel evaluation and for defining SE education. Squires et al. (2010) provide a competency-based approach that
can be used by universities or companies to compare their current state of SE capability development against a
government-industry defined set of needs. SE competencies can also be inferred from standards such as ISO-15288
(ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 2015) and from sources such as the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE
2012), the INCOSE Systems Engineering Certification Program, and CMMI criteria (SEI 2007). Whitcomb, Khan,
and White describe the development of a systems engineering competency model for the United States Department
of Defense based on a series of existing competency models (Whitcomb, Khan, and White 2013; 2014).
To provide specific examples for illustration, more details about three SE competency model examples follow. These
include:
• The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) UK Advisory Board model (INCOSE 2010),
(INCOSE UK 2009);
• The DAU ENG model (DAU 2013); and
• The NASA Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL) model (NASA 2009)
INCOSE SE Competency Model

The INCOSE model was developed by a working group in the United Kingdom (Cowper et al. 2005). As Table 2
shows, the INCOSE framework is divided into three theme areas - systems thinking, holistic life cycle view, and
systems management - with a number of competencies in each. The INCOSE UK model was later adopted by the
broader INCOSE organization (INCOSE 2010).
Table 2. INCOSE UK Working Group Competency (INCOSE UK 2010).
This information has been published with the kind permission of INCOSE UK Ltd and remains the copyright of
INCOSE UK Ltd - ©INCOSE UK LTD 2010. All rights reserved.
Systems Thinking System Concepts
Super-System Capability Issues
Enterprise and Technology Environment
Hollistic Lifecycle View Determining and Managing Stakeholder Requirements
Systems Design Architectural Design
Concept Generation
Design For...
• Functional Analysis
• Interface Management
• Maintaining Design Integrity
• Modeling and Simulation
• Selecting Preferred Solution
• System Robustness
Systems Integration & Verification
Validation
Transition to Operation
Systems Engineering Management Concurrent Engineering
Enterprise Integration
Integration of Specialties
Lifecycle Process Definition
Planning, Monitoring, and Controlling

United States DoD Engineering Competency Model

The model for US Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition engineering professionals (ENG) includes 41
competency areas, as shown in Table 3 (DAU 2013). Each is grouped according to a “Unit of Competence” as listed
in the left-hand column. For this model, the four top-level groupings are: analytical, technical management,
professional, and business acumen. The life cycle view used in the INCOSE model is evident in the ENG analytical
grouping but is not cited explicitly. Technical management is the equivalent of the INCOSE SE management, but
additional competencies are added, including software engineering competencies and acquisition. Selected general
professional skills have been added to meet the needs for strong leadership required of the acquisition engineering
professionals. The business acumen competencies were added to meet the needs of these professionals to be able to
support contract development and oversight activities and to engage with the defense industry.
Table 3. DoD Competency Model (DAU 2013) Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD).
Analytical (11) 1. Mission-Level Assessment
2. Stakeholder Requirements Definition
3. Requirements Analysis
4. Architecture Design
5. Implementation
6. Integration
7. Verification
8. Validation
9. Transition
10. Design Considerations
11. Tools and Techniques
Technical Management (10) 12. Decision Analysis
13. Technical Planning
14. Technical Assessment
15. Configuration Management
16. Requirements Management
17. Risk Management
18. Data Management
19. Interface Management
20. Software Engineering
21. Acquisition
Professional (10) 22. Problem Solving
23. Strategic Thinking
24. Professional Ethics
25. Leading High-Performance Teams
26. Communication
27. Coaching and Mentoring
28. Managing Stakeholders
29. Mission and Results Focus
30. Personal Effectiveness/Peer Interaction
31. Sound Judgment
Business Acumen (10) 32. Industry Landscape
33. Organization
34. Cost, Pricing, and Rates
35. Cost Estimating
36. Financial Reporting and Metrics
37. Business Strategy
38. Capture Planning and Proposal Process
39. Supplier Management
40. Industry Motivation, Incentives, Rewards
41. Negotiations
NASA SE Competency Model

The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) APPEL website provides a competency model that
covers both project engineering and systems engineering (APPEL 2009). There are three parts to the model: one that
is unique to project engineering, one that is unique to systems engineering, and a third that is common to both
disciplines. Table 4 below shows the SE aspects of the model. The project management items include project
conceptualization, resource management, project implementation, project closeout, and program control and
evaluation. The common competency areas are: NASA internal and external environments, human capital and
management, security, safety and mission assurance, professional and leadership development, and knowledge
management. This 2010 model is adapted from earlier versions. Squires et al. (2010, 246-260) offer a method that
can be used to analyze the degree to which an organization’s SE capabilities meet government-industry defined SE
needs.
Table 4. SE Portion of the APPEL Competency Model (APPEL 2009). Released by NASA APPEL.
System Design SE 1.1 - Stakeholder Expectation Definition & Management
SE 1.2 - Technical Requirements Definition
SE 1.3 - Logical Decomposition
SE 1.4 - Design Solution Definition
Product Realization SE 2.1 - Product Implementation
SE 2.2 - Product Integration
SE 2.3 - Product Verification
SE 2.4 - Product Validation
SE 2.5 - Product Transition
Technical Management SE 3.1 - Technical Planning
SE 3.2 - Requirements Management
SE 3.3 - Interface Management
SE 3.4 - Technical Risk Management
SE 3.5 - Configuration Management
SE 3.6 - Technical Data Management
SE 3.7 - Technical Assessment
SE 3.8 - Technical Decision Analysis
Relationship of SE Competencies to Other Competencies

SE is one of many engineering disciplines. A competent SE must possess KSAAs that are unique to SE, as well as
many other KSAAs that are shared with other engineering and non-engineering disciplines.
One approach for a complete engineering competency model framework has multiple dimensions where each of the
dimensions has unique KSAAs that are independent of the other dimensions (Wells 2008). The number of
dimensions depends on the engineering organization and the range of work performed within the organization. The
concept of creating independent axes for the competencies was presented in Jansma and Derro (2007), using
technical knowledge (domain/discipline specific), personal behaviors, and process as the three axes. An approach
that uses process as a dimension is presented in Widmann et al. (2000), where the competencies are mapped to
process and process maturity models. For a large engineering organization that creates complex systems solutions,
there are typically four dimensions:
1. Discipline (e.g., electrical, mechanical, chemical, systems, optical);
2. Life Cycle (e.g., requirements, design, testing);
3. Domain (e.g., aerospace, ships, health, transportation); and
4. Mission (e.g., air defense, naval warfare, rail transportation, border control, environmental protection).
These four dimensions are built on the concept defined in Jansma and Derro (2007) and Widmann et al. (2000) by
separating discipline from domain and by adding mission and life cycle dimensions. Within many organizations, the
mission may be consistent across the organization and this dimension would be unnecessary. A three-dimensional
example is shown in Figure 1, where the organization works on only one mission area so the mission dimension has
been eliminated from the framework.
Figure 1. Layered and Multi-dimensional in the Engineering Layer (IEEE 2008). Reprinted with permission of © Copyright IEEE
– All rights reserved. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
The discipline, domain, and life cycle dimensions are included in this example, and some of the first-level areas in
each of these dimensions are shown. At this level, an organization or an individual can indicate which areas are
included in their existing or desired competencies. The sub-cubes are filled in by indicating the level of proficiency
that exists or is required. For this example, blank indicates that the area is not applicable, and colors (shades of gray)
are used to indicate the levels of expertise. The example shows a radar electrical designer that is an expert at
hardware verification, is skilled at writing radar electrical requirements, and has some knowledge of electrical
hardware concepts and detailed design. The radar electrical designer would also assess his or her proficiency in the
other areas, the foundation layer, and the leadership layer to provide a complete assessment.
References
Works Cited
Armstrong, J.R., D. Henry, K. Kepcher, and A. Pyster. 2011. "Competencies required for successful acquisition of
large, highly complex systems of systems." Paper presented at 21st Annual International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium (IS), 20-23 June 2011, Denver, CO, USA.
Bloom, Benjamin S., Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walker H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives. New York, NY, USA: David McKay.
Cowper, D., S. Bennison, R. Allen-Shalless, K. Barnwell, S. Brown, A. El Fatatry, J. Hooper, S. Hudson, L. Oliver,
and A. Smith. 2005. Systems Engineering Core Competencies Framework. Folkestone, UK: International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) UK Advisory Board (UKAB).
DAU. 2013. ENG Competency Model, 12 June 2013 version. In Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S.
Department of Defense Database Online. Accessed on June 3, 2015. Available at https:/ / dap. dau. mil/ workforce/
Documents/Comp/ENG%20Competency%20Model%2020130612_Final.pdf.
ETA. 2010. Career One Stop: Competency Model Clearing House: Aerospace Competency Model. in Employment
and Training Administration (ETA)/U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, DC, USA. Accessed on September 15,
2011. Available at http://www.careeronestop.org//competencymodel/pyramid.aspx?AEO=Y.
Ferris, T.L.J. 2010. "Comparison of systems engineering competency frameworks." Paper presented at the 4th
Asia-Pacific Conference on Systems Engineering (APCOSE), Systems Engineering: Collaboration for Intelligent
Systems, 3-6 October 2010, Keelung, Taiwan.
Frank, M. 2000. "Engineering systems thinking and systems thinking." Systems Engineering. 3(3): 163-168.
Frank, M. 2002. "Characteristics of engineering systems thinking – A 3-D approach for curriculum content." IEEE
Transaction on System, Man, and Cybernetics. 32(3) Part C: 203-214.
Frank, M. 2006. "Knowledge, abilities, cognitive characteristics and behavioral competences of engineers with high
capacity for engineering systems thinking (CEST)." Systems Engineering. 9(2): 91-103. (Republished in IEEE
Engineering Management Review. 34(3) (2006):48-61).
Hall, A.D. 1962. A Methodology for Systems Engineering. Princeton, NJ, USA: D. Van Nostrand Company Inc.
Holt, J. and S. Perry. 2011. A Pragmatic Guide to Competency, Tools, Frameworks, and Assessment. Swindon, UK:
BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT.
INCOSE. 2011. "History of INCOSE Certification Program." Accessed April 13, 2015 at http:/ / www. incose. org/
certification/CertHistory.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
INCOSE UK. 2010. "Systems Engineering Competency Framework," Accessed on June 3, 2015. Available at
<http://www.incoseonline.org.uk/Normal_Files/Publications/Framework.aspx?CatID=Publications&SubCat=INCOSEPublications>>
Jansma, P.A. and M.E. Derro. 2007. "If you want good systems engineers, sometimes you have to grow your own!"
Paper presented at IEEE Aerospace Conference, 3-10 March, 2007, Big Sky, MT, USA.
Kasser, J.E., D. Hitchins, and T.V. Huynh. 2009. "Reengineering systems engineering." Paper presented at the 3rd
Annual Asia-Pacific Conference on Systems Engineering (APCOSE), 2009, Singapore.
Krathwohl, David. 2002. “A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview.” ‘’Theory Into Practice,’’ 41(4): 212-218.
Menrad, R. and H. Lawson. 2008. "Development of a NASA integrated echnical workforce career development
model entitled: Requisite occupation competencies and knowledge – The ROCK." Paper presented at the 59th
International Astronautical Congress (IAC), 29 September-3 October, 2008, Glasgow, Scotland.
MITRE. 2007. "MITRE Systems Engineering (SE) Competency Model." Version 1.13E. September 2007. Accessed
on June 3, 2015. Available at http:/ / www. mitre. org/ publications/ technical-papers/
systems-engineering-competency-model.
NASA. 2009. NASA Competency Management Systems (CMS): Workforce Competency Dictionary, revision 7a.
Washington, D.C, USA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
NASA. 2009. Project Management and Systems Engineering Competency Model. Academy of Program/Project &
Engineering Leadership (APPEL). Washington, DC, USA: US National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). Accessed on June 3, 2015. Available at http://appel.nasa.gov/competency-model/.
SEI. 2007. Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for Development, version 1.2, Measurement and Analysis
Process Area. Pittsburg, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
SEI. 2004. CMMI-Based Professional Certifications: The Competency Lifecycle Framework, Software Engineering
Institute, CMU/SEI-2004-SR-013. Accessed on June 3, 2015. Available at http:/ / resources. sei. cmu. edu/ library/
asset-view.cfm?assetid=6833.
Squires, A., W. Larson, and B. Sauser. 2010. "Mapping space-based systems engineering curriculum to
government-industry vetted competencies for improved organizational performance." Systems Engineering. 13 (3):
246-260. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sys.20146.
Squires, A., J. Wade, P. Dominick, and D. Gelosh. 2011. "Building a competency taxonomy to guide experience
acceleration of lead program systems engineers." Paper presented at the Conference on Systems Engineering
Research (CSER), 15-16 April 2011, Los Angeles, CA. Wells, B.H. 2008. "A multi-dimensional hierarchical
engineering competency model framework." Paper presented at IEEE International Systems Conference, March
2008, Montreal, Canada. Whitcomb, C., R. Khan and C. White. 2014. ‘’Systems Engineering Competency FY14
Technical Report.’’ Naval Postgraduate School Technical Report, Monterey, CA. Available at: https:/ / calhoun. nps.
edu/handle/10945/44705.
Whitcomb, C., L. Whitcomb. 2013. ‘’Effective Interpersonal and Team Communication Skills for Engineers.’’
Hoboken, NJ, USA: IEEE Press, John Wiley and Sons.
Whitcomb, C., R. Khan, and C. White. 2013. "Systems Engineering Competency FY13 Technical Report." Naval
Postgraduate School Technical Report, Monterey, CA. Accessed on June 4, 2015. Available at https:/ / calhoun. nps.
edu/handle/10945/43424.
Whitcomb, C., R. Khan, and C. White. 2014. "Systems Engineering Competency FY14 Technical Report." Naval
Postgraduate School Technical Report, Monterey, CA. Accessed on June 4, 2015. Available at https:/ / calhoun. nps.
edu/handle/10945/44705.
Widmann, E.R., G.E. Anderson, G.J. Hudak, and T.A. Hudak. 2000. "The taxonomy of systems engineering
competency for the new millennium." Presented at 10th Annual INCOSE Internal Symposium, 16-20 July 2000,
Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Primary References
DAU. 2013. ENG Competency Model, 12 June 2013 version. In Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S.
Department of Defense Database Online. Accessed on June 3, 2015. Available at https:/ / dap. dau. mil/ workforce/
Documents/Comp/ENG%20Competency%20Model%2020130612_Final.pdf.
Whitcomb, C., J. Delgado, R. Khan, J. Alexander, C. White, D. Grambow, P. Walter. 2015. "The Department of the
Navy Systems Engineering Career Competency Model." Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Acquisition Research
Symposium. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

Assessing Individuals
Lead Author: Heidi Davidz, Contributing Authors: Alice Squires, Art Pyster
The ability to fairly assess individuals is a critical aspect of enabling individuals. This article describes how to assess
the systems engineering (SE) competencies needed and possessed by an individual, as well as that individual’s SE
performance.
Assessing Competency Needs

If an organization wants to use its own customized competency model, an initial decision is make vs. buy. If there is
an existing SE competency model that fits the organization's context and purpose, the organization might want to use
the existing SE competency model directly. If existing models must be tailored or a new SE competency model
developed, the organization should first understand its context.
Determining Context
Prior to understanding what SE competencies are needed, it is important for an organization to examine the situation
in which it is embedded, including environment, history, and strategy. As Figure 1 shows, MITRE has developed a
framework characterizing different levels of systems complexity. (MITRE 2007, 1-12) This framework may help an
organization identify which competencies are needed. An organization working primarily in the traditional program
domain may need to emphasize a different set of competencies than an organization working primarily in the messy
frontier. If an organization seeks to improve existing capabilities in one area, extensive technical knowledge in that
specific area might be very important. For example, if stakeholder involvement is characterized by multiple equities
and distrust, rather than collaboration and concurrence, a higher level of competency in being able to balance
stakeholder requirements might be needed. If the organization's desired outcome builds a fundamentally new
capability, technical knowledge in a broader set of areas might be useful.
Figure 1. MITRE Enterprise Systems Engineering Framework (MITRE 2007). Reprinted with permission of © 2011. The MITRE Corporation.
All Rights Reserved. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
Additionally, an organization might consider both its current situation and its forward strategy. For example, if an
organization has previously worked in a traditional systems engineering context (MITRE 2007) but has a strategy to
transition into enterprise systems engineering (ESE) work in the future, that organization might want to develop a
competency model both for what was important in the traditional SE context and for what will be required for ESE
work. This would also hold true for an organization moving to a different contracting environment where
competencies, such as the ability to properly tailor the SE approach to right size the SE effort and balance cost and
risk, might be more important.
Determining Roles and Competencies

Once an organization has characterized its context, the next step is to understand exactly what SE roles are needed
and how those roles will be allocated to teams and individuals. To assess the performance of an individual, it is
essential to explicitly state the roles and competencies required for that individual. See the references in Roles and
Competencies for guides to existing SE standards and SE competency models.
Assessing Individual SE Competency

In order to demonstrate competence, there must be some way to qualify and measure it, and this is where
competency assessment is used (Holt and Perry 2011). This assessment informs the interventions needed to further
develop individual SE KSAA upon which competency is based. Described below are possible methods which may
be used for assessing an individual's current competency level; an organization should choose the correct model
based on their context, as identified previously.
Proficiency Levels
In order to provide a context for individuals and organizations to develop competencies, a consistent system of
defining KSAAs should be created. One popular method is based on Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom 1984), presented
below for the cognitive domain in order from least complex to most complex cognitive ability.
• Remember: Recall or recognize terms, definitions, facts, ideas, materials, patterns, sequences, methods,
principles, etc.
• Understand: Read and understand descriptions, communications, reports, tables, diagrams, directions,
regulations, etc.
• Apply: Know when and how to use ideas, procedures, methods, formulas, principles, theories, etc.
• Analyze: Break down information into its constituent parts and recognize their relationships to one another and
how they are organized; identify sublevel factors or salient data from a complex scenario.
• Evaluate: Make judgments about the value of proposed ideas, solutions, etc., by comparing the proposal to
specific criteria or standards.
• Create: Put parts or elements together in such a way as to reveal a pattern or structure not clearly there before;
identify which data or information from a complex set is appropriate to examine further or from which supported
conclusions can be drawn.
One way to assess competency is to assign KSAAs to proficiency level categories within each competency.
Examples of proficiency levels include the INCOSE competency model, with proficiency levels of: awareness,
supervised practitioner, practitioner, and expert (INCOSE 2010). The Academy of Program/Project & Engineering
Leadership (APPEL) competency model includes the levels: participate, apply, manage, and guide, respectively
(Menrad and Lawson 2008). The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as part of the
APPEL (APPEL 2009), has also defined proficiency levels: technical engineer/project team member, subsystem
lead/manager, project manager/project systems engineer, and program manager/program systems engineer. The
Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service (DCPAS) defines a 5-tier framework to indicate the degree to which
employees perform compentencies as awareness, basic, intermediate, advanced, and expert.
The KSAAs defined in the lower levels of the cognitive domain (remember, understand) are typically foundational,
and involve demonstration of basic knowledge. The higher levels (apply, analyze, evaluate, and create) reflect higher
cognitive ability. Cognitive and affective processes within Bloom’s taxonomy refer to levels of observable actions
that indicate learning is occuring (Whitcomb et al. 2015). The Bloom’s domain levels should not be used exclusively
to determine the proficiency levels required for attainment or assessment of a competency. Higher level cognitive
capabilities belong across proficiency levels, and should be used as appropriate to the KSAA involved. These
higher-level terms infer some observable action or outcome, so the context for assessing the attainment of the
KSAA, or a group of KSAAs, related to a competency needs to be defined. For example, applying SE methods can
be accomplished on simple subsystems or systems and so perhaps belong in a lower proficiency level such as
supervised practitioner. Applying SE methods to complex enterprise or systems of systems, may belong in the
practitioner or even the expert level. The determination of what proficiency level is desired for each KSAA is
determined by the organization and may vary among different organizations.
Quality of Competency Assessment

When using application as a measure of competency, it is important to have a measure of goodness. If someone is
applying a competency in an exceptionally complex situation, they may not necessarily be successful in this
application. An individual may be managing and guiding, but this is only helpful to the organization if it is being
done well. In addition, an individual might be fully proficient in a particular competency, but not be given an
opportunity to use that competency; for this reason, it is important to understand the context in which these
competencies are being assessed.
Individual SE Competency versus Performance

Even when an individual is highly proficient in an SE competency, context may preclude exemplary performance of
that competency. For example, an individual with high competency in risk management may be embedded in a team
or an organization which ignores that talent, whether because of flawed procedures or some other reason. Developing
individual competencies is not enough to ensure exemplary SE performance.
When SE roles are clearly defined, performance assessment at least has a chance to be objective. However, since
teams are most often tasked with accomplishing the SE tasks on a project, it is the team's performance which ends up
being assessed. (See Team Capability). The final execution and performance of SE is a function of competency,
capability, and capacity. (See Enabling Teams and Enabling Businesses and Enterprises.)
References
Works Cited
Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL). 2009. NASA's Systems Engineering
Competencies. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Available at: http:/ /
www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/pm-development/pm_se_competency_framework.html.
Bloom, B.S. 1984. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY, USA: Longman.
Holt, J., and S. Perry. 2011. A Pragmatic Guide to Competency, Tools, Frameworks, and Assessment. Swindon, UK:
BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT.
Menrad, R. and H. Lawson. 2008. "Development of a NASA integrated technical workforce career development
model entitled: Requisite occupation competencies and knowledge – The ROCK." Paper presented at the 59th
International Astronautical Congress (IAC). 29 September-3 October 2008. Glasgow, Scotland.
MITRE. 2007. Enterprise Architecting for Enterprise Systems Engineering. Warrendale, PA, USA: SEPO
Collaborations, SAE International.
Whitcomb, C., J. Delgado, R. Khan, J. Alexander, C. White, D. Grambow, P. Walter. 2015. "The Department of the
Navy systems engineering career competency model." Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Acquisition Research
Symposium. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
Primary References
Competencies. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Accessed on
May 2, 2014. Available at http:/ / appel. nasa. gov/ career-resources/
project-management-and-systems-engineering-competency-model/.
Holt, J., and S. Perry. 2011. A Pragmatic Guide to Competency: Tools, Frameworks and Assessment. Swindon, UK:
British Computer Society.

Developing Individuals
Developing each individual’s systems engineering (SE) competencies is a key aspect of enabling individuals. The
goal may be to develop competency in a broad range of SE competencies or a single aspect of SE, and it is important
to know exactly which SE competencies are desired. This article describes strategies to develop SE competencies in
individuals.
Closing Competency Gaps

Delivering excellent systems that fulfill customer needs is the primary goal of the organization. Developing the
‘’capability to deliver such systems is a secondary goal, and while necessary, is not sufficient. To attain both of these
goals, the organization must assess itself and effect a strategy to identify and close competency gaps.
To identify competency gaps, an organization may take two basic steps:
1. Listing desired competencies, as discussed in Roles and Competencies; and
2. Assessing the competencies of individual systems engineers, as discussed in Assessing Individuals.
Models useful for listing competencies include the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) United
Kingdom Advisory Board model (Cowper et al. 2005; INCOSE 2010), the ENG Competency Model (DAU 2013),
and the Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL 2009) model (Menrad and Lawson 2008).
Once the organization knows the SE competencies it needs to develop to close the competency gaps it has identified,
it may choose from the several methods (Davidz and Martin 2011) outlined in the table below.
Table 1. SE Competency Development Framework. (SEBoK Original)
Goal Objective Method
PRIMARY GOAL = Delivery of excellent systems Focus on successful performance Corporate intiatives
to fulfill customer needs outcome
Focus on performance of project team Team coaching of project team for performance
enhancement
SECONDARY GOAL = Competency to deliver Develop individual competency Training courses

excellent systems to fulfill customer needs
Job rotation
Mentoring
Hands-on experience
Develop a few hand-picked individuals
University educational degree program
Customized educational program
Combination program - education, training, job

rotation, mentoring, hands-on experience
Course certificate program
Ensure individual competency Certification program

through certification
Filter those working in systems roles Use individual characteristics to select employees
for systems roles
Ensure organizational competency ISO 9000

through certification
Develop organizational systems Process improvement using an established

competency through processes framework
Concept maps to identify the thought processes of

senior systems engineers
Standarize systems policies and procedures for

consistency
Systems engineering web portal
Systems knowledge management repository
On-call organizational experts
Rotating professor who works at company

part-time and is at university part-time
System Delivery
Some organizations mount initiatives which focus directly on successful system delivery. Others focus on project
team performance, in some cases by offering coaching, as a means to ensure successful system delivery.
One example of the latter approach is the performance enhancement service of the US National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL), which assesses
team performance and then offers developmental interventions with coaching (NASA 2010).
Organizations pursue multiple paths towards developing the capability to deliver excellent systems, including:
• developing the competency of individuals;
• developing the competency of the organization through processes (Davidz and Maier 2007); and
• putting measures in place to verify the efficacy of the selected methods.
Individual Competency
An organization may choose a combination of methods to develop individual systems competency. General
Electric’s Edison Engineering Development Program (GE 2010) and Lockheed Martin’s Leadership Development
Programs (Lockheed Martin 2010) are examples among the many combination programs offered within companies.
Whether or not the program is specifically oriented to develop systems skills, the breadth of technical training and
experience, coupled with business training, can produce a rich understanding of systems for the participant.
Furthermore, new combination programs can be designed to develop specific systems-oriented skills for an
organization.
Methods for developing individual competency include:
• classroom or online training courses, a traditional choice for knowledge transfer and skill acquisition. Here, an
instructor directs a classroom of participants. The method of instruction may vary from a lecture format to case
study work to hands-on exercises. The impact and effectiveness of this method varies considerably based on the
skill of the instructor, the effort of the participants, the presentation of the material, the course content, the quality
of the course design process, and the matching of the course material to organizational needs. These types of
interventions may also be given online. Squires (2011) investigates the relationship between online pedagogy and
student perceived learning of SE competencies.
• job rotation, where a participant rotates through a series of work assignments that cut across different aspects of
the organization to gain broad experience in a relatively short time.
• mentoring, where a more experienced individual is paired with a protégé in a developmental relationship. Many
organizations use mentoring, whose impact and effectiveness vary considerably. Success factors are the tenable
pairing of individuals, and the provision of adequate time for mentoring.
• hands-on experience, where organizations provide for their engineers to get hands-on experience that they would
otherwise lack. A research study by Davidz on enablers and barriers to the development of systems thinking
showed that systems thinking is developed primarily by experiential learning (Davidz 2006; Davidz and
Nightingale 2008, 1-14). As an example, some individuals found that working in a job that dealt with the full
system, such as working in an integration and test environment, enabled development of systems thinking.
• selecting individuals who appear to have high potential and focusing on their development. Hand-selection may
or may not be accompanied by the other identified methods.
• formal education, such as a university degree program. A growing number of SE degree programs are offered
worldwide (Lasfer and Pyster 2011). Companies have also worked with local universities to set up customized
educational programs for their employees. The company benefits because it can tailor the educational program to
the unique needs of its business. In a certificate program, individuals receive a certificate for taking a specific set
of courses, either at a university or as provided by the company. There are a growing number of certificate
programs for developing systems competency.
Individual Certification
Organizations may seek to boost individual systems competency through certification programs. These can combine
work experience, educational background, and training classes. Certifications are offered by local, national, and
international professional bodies.
SE organizations may encourage employees to seek certification from the International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE 2011) or may use this type of certification as a filter (see Filters, below). In addition, many
companies have developed their own internal certification measures. For example, the Aerospace Corporation has an
Aerospace Systems Architecting and Engineering Certificate Program (ASAECP). (Gardner 2007.)
Filters
Another approach to developing individual competency is to select employees for systems roles based on certain
characteristics, or filters. Before using a list of characteristics for filtering, an organization should critically examine:
1. how the list of individual characteristics was determined, and
2. how the characteristics identified enable the performance of a systems job.
Characteristics used as filters should:
• enable one to perform a systems job,
• be viewed as important to perform a systems job, or
• be necessary to perform a systems job.
A necessary characteristic is much stronger than an enabling one, and before filtering for certain traits, it is important
to understand whether the characteristic is an enabler or a necessity.
Finally, it is important to understand the extent to which findings are generally applicable, since a list of
characteristics that determine success in one organization may not be generalizable to another organization.
Organizational Capability
Once an organization has determined which SE capabilities are mission critical (see Deciding on Desired Systems
Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises), there are many different ways in which an organization
can seek to develop or improve these capabilities. Some approaches seen in the literature include the following:
• Organizations may choose to develop organizational systems capability through processes. One method
organizations may choose is to pursue process improvement using an established framework. An example is the
Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI) process improvement approach (SEI 2010, 1).
• Concept maps - graphical representations of engineering thought processes - have been shown to be an effective
method of transferring knowledge from senior engineering personnel to junior engineering personnel (Kramer
2007, 26-29; Kramer 2005). These maps may provide a mechanism for increasing knowledge of the systems
engineering population of an organization.
• An organization may also choose to develop organizational systems competencies by standardizing systems
policies and procedures. An example from NASA is their NASA Systems Engineering Processes and
Requirements (NASA 2007).
• Some organizations use a web portal to store and organize applicable systems engineering knowledge and
processes, which assists in developing organizational systems competency. An example is the Mission Assurance
Portal for the Aerospace Corporation (Roberts et al. 2007, 10-13).
• Another approach being considered in the community is the development of a rotating professor role, where the
person would work at the company and then at a university to strengthen the link between academia and industry.
• Another approach is to alter organizational design to foster and mature a desired competency. For example, an
organization that identifies competency in the area of reliability as critical to its SE success may develop a
reliability group, which will help foster growth and improvement in reliability competencies.
Organizational Certification
Certification at the organizational level also exists and can be a means for ensuring competency. ISO certification is
one example (ISO 2010). Before taking this approach, the organization should verify that the capabilities required by
the certification are indeed the systems capabilities it seeks. For more on determining appropriate organizational
capabilities, see Deciding on Desired Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises.
Repositioning the Product Life Cycle

An organization may also choose to reposition its product life cycle philosophy to maintain system competency. For
example, NASA has done this with its APPEL program (APPEL 2009).
Since the systems competencies of individuals are primarily developed through experiential learning, providing
experiential learning opportunities is critical. Shortening the product life cycle is one way to ensure that individuals
acquire the full range of desired competency sooner.
Maintaining Competency Plans

An organization that has developed an SE competency plan should consider how to maintain it. How, and how often,
will the competency plan be re-examined and updated? The maintenance process should account for the ongoing
evolution of global contexts, business strategies, and the SEBoK. The process for assessing competencies and taking
action to improve them must be part of the normal operations of the organization and should occur periodically.
References
Works Cited
Competencies. Washington, D.C., USA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Association. Accessed on September
15, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. nasa. gov/ offices/ oce/ appel/ pm-development/
pm_se_competency_framework.html.
Cowper, D., S. Bennison, R. Allen-Shalless, K. Barnwell, S. Brown, A. El Fatatry, J. Hooper, S. Hudson, L. Oliver,
and A. Smith. 2005. Systems Engineering Core Competencies Framework. Folkestone, UK: International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) UK Advisory Board (UKAB).
Davidz, H.L. and J. Martin. 2011. "Defining a strategy for development of systems capability in the workforce".
Systems Engineering. 14(2): 141-143.
Davidz, H.L. and M.W. Maier. 2007. "An integrated approach to developing systems professionals." Paper presented
at the 17th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 24-28 June
2007. San Diego, CA, USA.
Davidz, H.L., and D. Nightingale. 2008. "Enabling systems thinking to accelerate the development of senior systems
engineers." Systems Engineering. 11(1): 1-14.
Davidz, H.L. 2006. Enabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate the Development of Senior Systems Engineers.
Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA.
Gardner, B. 2007. "A corporate approach to national security space education." Crosslink, the Aerospace
Corporation Magazine of Advances in Aerospace Technology. 8(1) (Spring 2007):10-5. Accessed April 23, 2013.
Available at: http://aerospace.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/crosslink/V8N1.pdf.
GE. 2010. Edison Engineering Development Program (EEDP) in General Electric. Accessed on September 15,
2011. Available at http:/ / www. gecareers. com/ GECAREERS/ jsp/ us/ studentOpportunities/ leadershipPrograms/
eng_program_guide.jsp.
INCOSE. 2011. "Systems Engineering Professional Certification." In International Council on Systems Engineering
online. Accessed April 13, 2015. Available at: http://www.incose.org/certification/.
Kramer, M.J. 2007. "Can concept maps bridge the engineering gap?" Crosslink, the Aerospace Corporation
Magazine of Advances in Aerospace Technology. 8(1) (Spring 2007): 26-9. Accessed April 23, 2013. Available at:
http://aerospace.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/crosslink/V8N1.pdf.
Kramer, M.J. 2005. Using Concept Maps for Knowledge Acquisition in Satellite Design: Translating 'Statement of
Requirements on Orbit' to 'Design Requirements. Dissertation. Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA: Graduate School of
Computer and Information Sciences, Nova Southeastern University.
Lasfer, K. and A. Pyster. 2011. "The growth of systems engineering graduate programs in the United States." Paper
presented at Conference on Systems Engineering Research, 15-16 April 2011. Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lockheed Martin. 2010. Training and Leadership Development Programs for College Applicants in Lockheed
Martin Corporation. Bethesda, MD, USA. Accessed on August 30, 2012. Available at http:/ / www.
lockheedmartinjobs.com/leadership-development-program.asp.
NASA. 2010. Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL): Project Life Cycle Support in U.S.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Washington, D.C., USA: U.S. National Air and Space
Administration (NASA). Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. nasa. gov/ offices/ oce/ appel/
performance/lifecycle/161.html.
NASA. 2007. NASA Procedural Requirements: NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements.
Washington, D.C., USA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NPR 7123.1A.
Roberts, J., B. Simpson, and S. Guarro. 2007. "A mission assurance toolbox." Crosslink, the Aerospace Corporation
Magazine of Advances in Aerospace Technology. 8(2) (Fall 2007): 10-13.
SEI. 2007. Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for Development, version 1.2, Measurement and Analysis
Process Area. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
Squires, A. 2011. Investigating the Relationship between Online Pedagogy and Student Perceived Learning of
Systems Engineering Competencies. Dissertation. Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Primary References
Competencies. Washington, D.C., USA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Accessed on
May 2, 2014. Available at http:/ / appel. nasa. gov/ career-resources/
project-management-and-systems-engineering-competency-model/.
DAU. 2013. ENG Competency Model, 12 June 2013 version. in Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S.
Department of Defense Database Online. Accessed on September 23, 2014. Available at https:/ / acc. dau. mil/
CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=657526&lang=en-US.
Davidz, H.L. and J. Martin. 2011. "Defining a strategy for development of systems capability in the workforce".
None.

Ethical Behavior
Lead Author: Dick Fairley, Chuck Calvano, Contributing Authors: Scott Jackson, Heidi Davidz, Alice Squires, Art
Pyster
If the competency of the systems engineer is a matter of KSAA—knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes—then the
word “attitudes” must have an ethical dimension. The ethical framework that guides the SE's actions ensures that the
SE ultimately does good and not harm. Ethical standards apply both to individuals and to organizations. This section
discusses the moral foundations of ethics, and the elements of ethical conduct that are especially relevant to systems
engineering.
Ethics and Morals in Systems Engineering

Like other people, systems engineers have morals: guiding personal thoughts and feelings about what is right and
wrong. All of us also share, with other members of various communities to which we belong, ethics: standards that
say what conduct is appropriate and what is not (Whitbeck 2007).
Morals are part of a person's character, the result of upbringing, culture, and other environmental influences. Ethics
apply morals within the frame of a social system, which could be professional, business, academic, recreational,
cultural, political, religious, or even familial. While a person’s moral code is usually considered immutable, one's
ethics may need to account for new situations as one's profession or role in life changes. Tensions may exist between
an engineer's responsibilities to society and those to the customer, the employer, or even the family, resulting in
ethical dilemmas, and creating situations where morals come into play.
There is no shortage of discussion on ethics. Ethical codes are promulgated by professional and other organizations.
Professions here refers to occupations that require learning and advanced knowledge and which safeguard or
promote the well-being of others and of society as a whole.
Systems engineers have two ethical responsibilities over and above those of most other engineering professions:
• While engineers in general use their professional skills to address customer needs and desires, systems
engineering (SE) helps determine those needs and desires in the course of defining and managing requirements.
SEs have an obligation to ensure that problem or program definition is influenced solely by the interests of the
customer or user, not by those of the systems engineer or the engineer’s firm.
• Systems engineers typically integrate and oversee the work of others whose expertise differs from their own. This
makes the obligation to widen one’s understanding and to seek competent advice from other professionals more
acute in SE than in other disciplines.
Caroline Whitbeck's Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research explains what ethical behavior means for
engineering professionals. Like most books on ethics, this one starts by clarifying the differences between ethics and
morals, which can seem somewhat obscure at times (Whitbeck 2007).
A sampling of areas where ethics figure in the engineering of modern systems are described below.
Data Confidentiality and Security, Surveillance, and Privacy

Privacy, confidentiality, and security in systems which touch Personally Identifiable Information (PII) have an
ethical dimension for the systems engineers responsible for developing those systems.
Laws and Regulations

Systems are typically developed in societies, sometimes involving international communities, which have laws
concerning contracts, intellectual property, freedom of information, and employment. The requirements and
restraints of those laws govern the practice of the systems engineer, who must be aware of the laws and must
consider their implications for the partnerships that system development entails.
Whether or not they are stated in the system requirements document or provided by the customer, laws and
regulations do, in fact, impose system requirements. SEs are responsible for knowing and applying relevant laws and
regulations. This means recognizing other people’s proprietary interests by safeguarding their intellectual property
(trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, and patents), and giving them credit for performing work and making
innovations.
Cultural Issues
Since systems engineers develop and maintain products used by humans globally, it is important that they understand
the historical and cultural aspects of their profession and the related context in which their products will be used.
System engineers need to be aware of societal diversity and act without prejudice or discrimination.
Ethical Considerations in the Systems Engineering Method

Naturally, SE approaches to meeting customer needs must integrate SE ethics.
Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct

Codes of ethics are promulgated by the IEEE (IEEE 2009), the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
(NSPE 2007), the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE 2006) and other engineering
organizations.
The INCOSE Code of Ethics enunciates fundamental ethical principles like honesty, impartiality, integrity, keeping
abreast of knowledge, striving to increase competence, and supporting educational and professional organizations.
Based on these principles, the code identifies the systems engineer's fundamental duties to society and the public,
and the rules of practice that systems engineers should follow to fulfill those duties.
According to the INCOSE Code of Ethics, it is the systems engineer's duty to:
• guard the public interest and protect the environment, safety, and welfare of those affected by engineering
activities and technological artifacts;
• accept responsibility for one's actions and engineering results, including being open to ethical scrutiny and
assessment;
• proactively mitigate unsafe practice;
• manage risk using knowledge gained by applying a whole-system viewpoint and understanding of systemic
interfaces; and
• promote the understanding, implementation, and acceptance of prudent SE measures.
Enforcing Ethics
Many organizations enforce ethics internally by means of ethics policies. These polices typically include rules such
as the following:
• There shall be no exchange of favors between anyone in the organization and entities with which it does business,
such as suppliers, customers, or regulatory agencies.
• Product information, for example, test data, shall be reported accurately and completely to the contracting agency.
• There shall be no conflict of interest between the organization and entities with which it does business.
Favors can consist of providing money, reimbursement of travel or entertainment expenses, other items of equivalent
value, or inappropriate job offers. Conflict of interest can arise when the personal or professional financial interests
or organizational ties of an engineer are potentially at odds with the best interests of the customer or the engineer’s
employer. Since conflict of interest and other ethical transgressions can be hard to define, care must be taken to
design ethics policies that are observable and enforceable. Internal audit functions or external regulatory agencies
may enforce ethical rules at the individual, team, organizational, or enterprise level. Punishment for violating ethics
policies can include termination and other disciplinary actions.
Unlike self-employed physicians who may choose to not do something specific, many systems engineers are
individuals employed by organizations. Depending on the organizational context, an issue in conflict with the
company might result in giving up the job. This may result in additional ethical considerations.
Responsibility to Society
Engineers who create products and services for use in society have an obligation to serve the public good.
Additionally, the IEEE Code of Ethics states that engineers have an obligation to foster the professional development
and ethical integrity of colleagues (IEEE 2015). Because of the criticality and scope of many systems, systems
engineers, operating in teams within projects and on behalf of the public in delivery of products, have special
responsibility. Poorly designed systems or services can have calamitous effects on society. The INCOSE Code of
Ethics asserts the responsibility of systems engineers to “guard the public interest and protect the environment,
safety, and welfare of those affected by engineering activities and technological artifacts” (INCOSE 2006).
References
Works Cited
IEEE. 2009. IEEE Code of Ethics. in IEEE [database online]. Accessed September 7, 2012. Available: http:/ / www.
ieee.org/ethics.
IEEE. 2015. IEEE Code of Ethics. Accessed April 6, 2015. Available: http:/ / www. ieee. org/ about/ corporate/
governance/p7-8.html.
INCOSE. 2006. INCOSE Code of Ethics. In International Council on Systems Engineering [database online].
Accessed April 13, 2015. Available: http://www.incose.org/about/leadershiporganization/codeofethics.
NSPE. 2007. NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. Alexandria, VA, USA: National Society of Professional
Engineers. NSPE publication #1102. Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available: http://www.nspe.org/resources/
ethics.
Whitbeck, C. 2007. Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University
Press.
Primary References
Whitbeck, C. 2007. Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University
Press.
National Institute for Ethics in Engineering. "National Institute for Engineering Ethics." In the Murdough Center for
Engineering Professionalism. Hosted by Texas Technical University. Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available at
http://www.murdough.ttu.edu/pd.cfm?pt=NIEE.
OnlineEthics.org. "Online Ethics Center (OEC)." Accessed September 8, 2011. Available at: http:/ / www.
onlineethics.org/.
Martin, M. and R. Schinzinger. 2004. Ethics in Engineering, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Penn State. "Ethics: Books." In Penn State College of Engineering. Accessed September 8, 2011. Available at: http:/
/www.engr.psu.edu/ethics/books.asp.
Smith, J.H. (ed). 2008. Engineering Ethics – Concepts, Viewpoint, Cases and Codes. National Institute for
Engineering Ethics, Texas Technical University.
< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article (Part 6)>

874
Related Disciplines
Lead Author: Art Pyster, Contributing Authors: Dick Fairley, Tom Hilburn, Alice Squires
Systems engineers routinely work within broad multidisciplinary teams (Pyster et al. 2018) and across many
disciplines. Part 6 of the SEBoK presents knowledge that should be useful to systems engineers in two ways: (1)
systems engineers benefit from knowing aspects of these disciplines directly; e.g. given how central software is to
the functioning of virtually every interesting engineered system, a systems engineer should know a fair amount about
software and software engineering; and (2) systems engineers routinely interact with these other fields and
professionals in those fields.
SE intersects with virtually every other recognized discipline. Besides the other engineering disciplines such as
electrical and mechanical engineering, SE intersects with the physical sciences, social sciences, project management,
philosophy, etc. For example, a systems engineer leading the design of an autonomous car would work with
electrical engineers, software engineers, project managers, mechanical engineers, computer scientists, radio
engineers, data analysts, human factors specialists, cybersecurity engineers, economists, and professionals from
many other disciplines. The knowledge areas (KAs) contained in Part 6 and the topics under them provide an
overview of some of these disciplines with emphasis on what a systems engineer needs to know to be effective,
accompanied by pointers to that knowledge. The KAs included in Part 6 could run into the dozens, but only a
handful are addressed in this version of the SEBoK. Subsequent SEBoK releases will expand the number of related
disciplines and offer deeper insight into their relationship with SE.

• Systems Engineering and Enterprise IT
• Systems Engineering and Environmental Engineering
• Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
• Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering
• Systems Engineering and Mechanical Engineering
• Systems Engineering and Project Management
• Systems Engineering and Software Engineering
• Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes
Each KA above except the last is a major well-recognized stand-alone discipline. Each is widely taught in
universities around the world, has professional societies devoted to it, standards that assist its practitioners,
publications that describe its knowledge and practices, and a vibrant community of practitioners and researchers who
often have one or more university degrees in the discipline. The last KA is different. It describes the disciplines
associated with engineering system qualities or properties; e.g., security is a system quality. Security engineering is
the discipline through which system security is realized in a system. The security of a modern car is widely
understood to be a function of many factors such as the strength of its physical exterior, its alarm system which may
have extensive sensors and software, and its communications system which can wirelessly alert the owner or police
if someone attempts to break into it. Similarly, the reliability of a car is a function of such factors as the reliability of
its individual subsystems and components (mechanical, electronic, software, etc.) and how the car has been designed
to compensate for a failed subsystem or component (e.g. if the electronic door lock fails, can the driver use a
physical key to lock and unlock the car?). The topics included in this KA are among the most important qualities a
systems engineer would typically consider.
References
Works Cited
Pyster, A., N. Hutchison, D. Henry. 2018. The Paradoxical Mindset of Systems Engineers. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley.
Primary References
Bourque, P. and R.E. Fairley (eds.). 2014. SWEBOK: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge,
version 3.0. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at http:/ / www.
Swebok.org.
(DAU)/US Department of Defense. Available at: https://www.dau.edu/tools/dag (Accessed on March 19, 2021).
IEEE Computer Society. 2022. SWEBOK Guide Version 4.0 beta. Accessed August 28, 2023. Available at https:/ /
waseda.app.box.com/s/elnhhnezdycn2q2zp4fe0f2t1fvse5rn.
Pyster, A., N. Hutchison, D. Henry. 2018. The Paradoxical Mindset of Systems Engineers. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley.
None.

877
Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and

Environmental Engineering
Systems Engineering and Environmental

Engineering
Lead Authors: Paul Phister, David Olwell
Environmental engineering addresses four issues that arise in system design and operation. They are: (1) design for a
given operating environment, (2) environmental impact, (3) green design, and (4) compliance with environmental
regulations.
Overview
A system is designed for a particular operating environment. Product systems, in particular, routinely consider
conditions of temperature and humidity. Depending on the product, other environmental conditions may need to be
considered, including UV exposure, radiation, magnetic forces, vibration, and others. The allowable range of these
conditions must be specified in the requirements for the system.
Requirements
The general principles for writing requirements also apply to specifying the operating environment for a system and
its elements. Requirements are often written to require compliance with a set of standards.
Discipline Management
Many countries require assessment of environmental impact of large projects before regulatory approval is given.
The assessment is documented in an environmental impact statement (EIS). In the United States, a complex project
can require an EIS that greatly adds to the cost, schedule, and risk of the project.
Scope
In the U.S., the process in Figure 1 is followed. A proposal is prepared prior to a project being funded. The regulator
examines the proposal. If it falls into an excluded category, no further action is taken. If not, an environmental
assessment is made. If that assessment determines a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), no further action is
taken. In all other cases, an environmental impact statement is required.
Figure 1. Flowchart to Decide if an EIS is Necessary. (SEBoK Original)
Preparation of an EIS is a resource significant task. Bregman (2000) and Kreske (1996) provide accessible overviews
of the process. Lee and Lin (2000) provide a handbook of environmental engineering calculations to aid in the
technical submission. Numerous firms offer consulting services.
Legal References
Basic references in the U.S. include the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and its implementing regulations
(NEPA 1969) and the European Ccommission directive (EC 1985). State and local regulations can be extensive;
Burby and Paterson (1993) discuss improving compliance.
Cost and Schedule Implications

Depending on the scale of the project, the preparation of an EIS can take years and cost millions. For example, the
EIS for the Honolulu light rail project took four years and cost $156M (Hill 2011). While a project may proceed
even if the EIS finds a negative impact, opponents to a project may use the EIS process to delay a project. A
common tactic is to claim the EIS was not complete in that it omitted some environmental impacts. Eccleston (2000)
provides a guide to planning for EIS.
Energy Efficiency
There is a large amount of literature that has been published about design for energy efficiency. Lovins (2010) offers
ten design principles. He also provides case studies (Lovins et al. 2011). Intel (2021) provides guidance for
improving the energy efficiency of its computer chips. A great deal of information is also available in regard to the
efficient design of structures; DOE (2011) provides a good overview.
Increased energy efficiency can significantly reduce total life cycle cost for a system. For example, the Toyota Prius
was found to have the lowest life cycle cost for 60,000 miles, three years despite having a higher initial purchase
price (Brown 2011).
Carbon Footprint
Increased attention is being paid to the emission of carbon dioxide. BSI British Standards offers a specification for
assessing life cycle greenhouse emissions for goods and services (BSI 2011).
Sustainability
Graedel and Allenby (2009), Maydl (2004), Stasinopoulos (2009), Meryman (2004), and Lockton and Harrison
(2008) discuss design for sustainability. Sustainability is often discussed in the context of the UN report on Our
Common Future (WCED 1987) and the Rio Declaration (UN 1992).
Discipline Relationships
An enterprise must attend to compliance with the various environmental regulations. Dechant et al. (1994) provide
the example of a company in which 17% of every sales dollar goes toward compliance activities. They discuss
gaining a competitive advantage through better compliance. Gupta (1995) studies how compliance can improve the
operations function. Berry (1998) and Nash (2001) discuss methods for environmental management by the
enterprise.
Dependencies
ISO14001 sets the standards for organization to comply with environmental regulations. Kwon and Seo (2002)
discuss this in a Korean context, and Whitelaw (2004) presents a handbook on implementing ISO14001.
Discipline Standards
Depending on the product being developed, standards may exist for operating conditions. For example, ISO 9241-6
specifies the office environment for a video display terminal. Military equipment may be required to meet MILSTD
810G standard (DoD 2014) in the US, or DEF STAN 00-35 in the UK (MoD 2017).
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration publishes a list of EIS best practices (FAA 2002).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines green engineering as: the design, commercialization, and
use of processes and products, which are feasible and economical, while minimizing (1) generation of pollution at
the source and (2) risk to human health and the environment (EPA 2011). Green engineering embraces the concept
that decisions to protect human health and the environment can have the greatest impact and cost effectiveness when
applied early to the design and development phase of a process or product.
The EPA (2011) offers the following principles of green engineering:
• Engineer processes and products holistically, use systems analysis, and integrate environmental impact
assessment tools.
• Conserve and improve natural ecosystems while protecting human health and well-being.
• Use life-cycle thinking in all engineering activities.
• Ensure that all material and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently safe and benign as possible.
• Minimize depletion of natural resources.
• Strive to prevent waste.
• Develop and apply engineering solutions, while being cognizant of local geography, aspirations, and cultures.
• Create engineering solutions beyond current or dominant technologies; additionally, improve, innovate, and
invent (technologies) to achieve sustainability.
• Actively engage communities and stakeholders in development of engineering solutions.
References
Works Cited
Berry, MA. 1998. "Proactive corporate environmental management: Aa new industrial revolution." The Academy of
Management Executive, 12(2): 38-50.
Bregman, J.I. 2000. Environmental Impact Statements, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Brown, C. 2011 "The Green Fleet Price Tag." Business Fleet. Accessed May 15, 2022. Available at http:/ / www.
businessfleet.com/Article/Story/2011/07/The-Green-Fleet-Price-Tag.aspx.
BSI. 2011. "Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and service, PAS
2050:2011." London, UK: British Standards Institution (BSI). Accessed May 15, 2022. Available at http:/ / shop.
bsigroup.com/en/forms/PASs/PAS-2050.
Burby, R.J. and R.G. Paterson. 1993. "Improving compliance with state environmental regulations." Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 12(4): 753–772.
Dechant, K., B. Altman, R.M. Downing, and T. Keeney. 1994. "Environmental leadership: From compliance to
competitive advantage." Academy of Management Executive, 8(3): 7.
DoD. 2014. Department of Defense Test Method Standard: Environmental Engineering Considerations and
Laboratory Tests, MIL-STD-810G Change Notice 1. Washington, DC, USA: US Army Test and Evaluation
Command, US Department of Defense (DoD). Accessed May 15, 2022. Available at http:/ / everyspec. com/
MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-810G_CHG-1_50560/.
Eccleston, C. 2000. Environmental Impact Statements: A Comprehensive Guide to Project and Strategic Planning.
New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
EPA. 2011. "Green Engineering. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)." Washington, D.C., USA: United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed May 15, 2022. Available at https://www.epa.gov/green-engineering.
EC. 1985. "Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects
on the environment (85/337/EEC)." European Commission (EC). Accessed May 15, 2022. Available at https:/ /
www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/1985/337/pdfs/eudr_19850337_adopted_en.pdf.
FAA. 2002. "Best Practices for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Management." Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Accessed May 15, 2022. Availablehttp:/ / www. faa. gov/ airports/ environmental/
eis_best_practices/?sect=intro.
Graedel, T.E. and B.R. Allenby. 2009. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice Hall.
Gupta, M.C. 1995. "Environmental management and its impact on the operations function." International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 15(8): 34-51.
Hill, T. 2011. "Honolulu rail's next stop?" Honolulu Magazine. July 2011.
Intel. 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility." Intel Corporation. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at http:/ / www.
intel.com/intel/other/ehs/product_ecology/energy.htm.
Kreske, D.L. 1996. Environmental Impact Statements: A Practical Guide for Agencies, Citizens, and Consultants.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Kwon, D.M., and M.S. Seo. 2002. "A study of compliance with environmental regulations of ISO 14001 certified
companies in Korea." Journal of Environmental Management. 65(4): 347-353.
Lee, C.C., and S.D. Lin. 2000. Handbook of Environmental Engineering Calculations. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw Hill Professional.
Lockton, D. and D. Harrison. 2008. "Making the user more efficient: Design for sustainable behaviour."
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering. 1(1): 3-8.
Lovins, A. 2010. "Factor Ten Engineering Design Principles," version 1.0. Accessed on May 15, 2022. Available at
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2010-10_10xEPrinciples.
Lovins, A. et al. 2011. "Case Studies." Accessed on May 15, 2022. Available at http:/ / move. rmi. org/
markets-in-motion/case-studies/.
Maydl, P. 2004. "Sustainable Engineering: State-of-the-Art and Prospects." Structural Engineering International.
14(3): 176-180.
Meryman, H. 2004. "Sustainable Engineering Using Specifications to Make it Happen." Structural Engineering
International. 14(3).
MoD. 2017. Standard 00-35, Environmental Handbook for Defence Materiel (Part 3) Environmental Test Methods.
London, England, UK: UK Ministry of Defence (MoD). Accessed May 15, 2022. Available at https:/ / standards.
globalspec.com/std/10074175/def-stan-00-035-part-3.
Nash, J. 2001. Regulating From the Inside: Can Environmental Management Systems Achieve Policy Goals?
Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future Press.
NEPA.1969. 42 USC 4321-4347. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Accessed May 15, 2022. Available at
https://ceq.doe.gov/laws-regulations/laws.html.
Stasinopoulos, P. 2009. Whole System Design: An Integrated Approach to Sustainable Engineering. London, UK:
Routledge.
UN. 1992. "Rio Declaration on Environment and Development." United Nations (UN). Accessed May 15, 2022.
Available athttps:/ / www. un. org/ en/ development/ desa/ population/ migration/ generalassembly/ docs/
globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf.
Whitelaw, K. 2004. ISO 140 01: Environmental Systems Handbook, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
WCED. 1987. "Report of the World Commission on Economic Development (WCED): Our Common Future."
Accessed May 15, 2022. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/wced.
Primary References
Bregman, J.I. 2000. Environmental Impact Statements, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Graedel, T.E., and B.R. Allenby. 2009. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice Hall.
Lee, C.C. and S.D. Lin. 2000. Handbook of Environmental Engineering Calculations. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw Hill Professional.
Whitelaw, K. 2004. ISO 14001: Environmental Systems Handbook, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
None.

883

Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic

Engineering
Lead Author: Ulrich Lenk
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and geospatial applications and infrastructures are widely used and widely
integrated into other systems. Among the most well-known such systems are those based on the Global Positioning
System (GPS) and other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). They have enabled such diverse applications
as automobile navigation systems, smartphones that location-stamp photographs, and military weapon systems that
target enemy locations. Where it is often claimed that 80% of all data may be geospatially referenced, research by
Hahmann and Burghardt (2013) indicates that about 60% of all data have a spatial reference; i.e. the data can be
related to a physical coordinate in a spatial reference system, or identified by a geographic identifier. Systems and
their constituents reside in or operate in space and often need to know where they or their parts, constituents, etc. are;
where their mobile components go; or where objects observed by the system are. In other words (Longley et al.
2015): “Almost everything that happens, happens somewhere. Knowing where something happens can be critically
important.” Extending this observation, potentially the system(s) and their associated constituents require
synchronization of their activities and actions which is often achieved by triggering actions via time stamps; for this
purpose, systems need to be time-wise synchronized to a certain extent or accuracy. The Geospatial/Geodetic
Engineering (GGE) Knowledge Area provides a broad introduction into this overall topic in order to make the reader
aware where relevant technologies are actually used in systems. It reflects the abundant uses and applications and
even critical dependencies of geodetic and geospatial technologies in systems, such as GNSS & GPS (satellite
positioning systems); GIS; spatial reference systems; processing, analysis and visualization (portrayal) of geographic
data. It briefly analyzes to what extent the Systems Engineering Specialty Activities listed in the INCOSE Systems
Engineering Handbook (2015) and modeling and simulation may be supported by related subject matter expertise.
As a consequence it concludes that GGE activities could be considered as dedicated Specialty Engineering activities
themselves within Systems Engineering.
Topics
This Knowledge Area includes three topic articles:
• Overview of Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
• Relationship between Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
• Further Insights into Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
References
Works Cited
Hahmann, S. and D. Burghardt. 2013. How much information is geospatially referenced? Networks and cognition.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 27(6):1171-1189. DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2012.743664.
Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering 884
Primary References
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, (4th
edition). San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE),
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04.
Longley, P.A., M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire, and D.W. Rhind. 2015. Geographic Information Science and Systems,
(4th edition). New York, Chichester, Weinheim: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
None.

Overview of Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering

This article is part of the Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering (GGE) Knowledge Area. It
provides a broad introduction into the overall topic including related applications in order to make the reader aware
where GGE is used in systems.
GIS and Geospatial Applications

Perhaps the most comprehensive recent standard textbooks on Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are Longley
et al. (2015) and Kresse and Danko (2012). Beyond these two books, there are many others on GIS and respective
spatial data capture procedures (surveying, photogrammetry, and remote sensing) and management applications.
Tomlinson (2019) and Peters (2012) as well as the online successor to this text book, System Design Strategies [1],
provide valuable insights into aspects of how to set up a GIS system. While Tomlinson (2019) looks more at the
management perspective and processes of implementing a GIS, Peters (2012) focuses more on technical aspects.
Domain-specific GIS applications are also documented in numerous textbooks. Domain areas include agriculture and
forestry, insurance economics and risk analysis, simulation and environmental impact analysis, hydrology,
archaeology, ecology, crime investigation and forensics, disaster management and first responders, marketing,
municipalities and cadaster, land administration and urban planning, utility sectors, telecommunications, smart cities
and military applications. The latter include Command and Control (C2) systems, or are even extended in Command,
Control, Communications, Computers Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. Generally
speaking, wherever data about events is displayed or portrayed, processed and/or analyzed in a geospatial context,
GIS technology is involved. The particular type of user interface doesn't matter. It could be a web interface, a
desktop client, or a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet computer. To provide visualization of this data
there must be spatial context for orientation, geographic data such as digital topographic maps, or geographic
imagery, Digital Terrain Models (DTM), etc. Beyond such classical geographical data, other types of data are also
often used, such as meteorological and other environmental data.
Interoperability is of major concern in geospatial technology. The Open Geospatial Consortium [2] (OGC) is
probably the most relevant organization that deals with GIS and sensor systems interoperability. The OGC has
published a dedicated set of interface specification standards [3] on their topics.
Positioning, Navigation and Timing

The previous description of geospatial technology focused mostly on stationary objects, i.e. on non-moving
geospatial data. This section is mainly concerned with objects in motion, i.e. objects moving in space and with
derived applications such as navigation, monitoring, and tracking such objects. The basic operations needed are
(geo-)positioning and navigation. Certainly, the majority of people using smartphones are also using various location
based services (LBS) that are provided in conjunction with GIS databases and services, such as Google Maps, a
well-known online GIS application. As a consequence, positioning and navigation, which are mainly achieved with
satellite positioning systems such as Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), have became ubiquitous and
transparent technologies in the last decade. Clearly the most relevant system in common use in the past has been the
US Global Positioning System (GPS) since it was the first of its kind. However, it is not the only one of its kind.
Russia developed a GNSS called GLONASS; Europe developed the Galileo system which is close to achieving full
operating capability; China is working on its Beidhou GNSS. GNSS are used for more than positioning and
navigation. Since range measurements conducted by GNSS are based on extremely accurate one-way travel times of
signals, these satellites have extremely accurate clocks. GNSS transmit this time for use by other systems, enabling
time synchronization of systems and also applications that require frequency normals that can be derived from these
time signals. Together, these three GNSS services are called Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT). For more
on satellite positioning systems and satellite navigation, two excellent sources are Teunissen and Montenbruck
(2017) and Hofmann-Wellenhof et al. (2008).
The public does not generally appreciate how many systems used in various domains rely on the availability of
GPS/GNSS signals. The majority of national critical infrastructures is now dependent on GNSS (Royal Academy of
Engineering 2013; Wallischeck 2016). Thus the availability of open access to GNSS signals is itself considered
critical infrastructures. Example infrastructures and applications that depend on GNSS include transport (rail, road,
aviation, marine, cycling, walking), agriculture, fisheries, law enforcement, highways management, services for
vulnerable people, energy production and management, surveying, dredging, health services, financial services,
information services, cartography, safety monitoring, scientific and environmental studies, search and rescue (e.g. as
given with the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System, GMDSS), telecommunications, tracking vehicles and
valuable or hazardous cargoes, and quantum cryptography (Royal Academy of Engineering 2013).
Geodesy and Geodetic Engineering for Providing the Frameworks for All
Spatial Applications
The above sections are application-oriented. However, at a more basic level, all numerical (coordinate-wise)
descriptions of natural and man-made stationary and mobile objects, including satellites, need to be referenced to a
spatial reference system. It may be a local stationary engineering coordinate reference system, a (moving) internal
coordinate reference system that is fixed to an object (in motion), a national spatial reference system, a regional
spatial reference system, or even a global spatial reference system, e.g. that given by the World Geodetic System
1984 (WGS84, cf. National Imagery and Mapping Agency 2004), which is the spatial reference system in which
GPS works. 2-dimensional ("horizontal") coordinates such as the combination of latitude and longitude in a geodetic
coordinate system are fairly straightforward because they are based mainly on mathematical assumptions. The shape
of the Earth is approximated by an ellipsoid on whose surface the coordinates are defined, and the ellipsoid is fixed
to the Earth via a geodetic datum/geodetic reference frame. Actually also the definition of the ellipsoid itself is part
of the geodetic reference frame. Only little input from geophysics is needed (the localization of the rotation axis of
the Earth). The third dimension, however, is mostly treated differently. Heights in general are referenced to a
reference surface. For ellipsoidal heights this is the ellipsoid, but since ellipsoidal heights can cause confusion as
they do not consider the mass characteristics of the Earth with their distribution, it is more common to use heights
that are related to a mean sea level (MSL) surface. The latter is mainly dependent on the (irregular!) distribution of
masses on Earth and thus on their physical properties. The typical surface used for referencing these gravity-related
heights is the so-called geoid which may be approximated by MSL. Beyond these Earth related aspects, however,
there are also celestial spatial reference systems and spatial reference systems on other celestial bodies. Torge and
Müller (2012) offers more information on these systems. Thus, geodetic engineering with its sub-disciplines of
physical and mathematical geodesy together with related engineering disciplines provide fundamental frameworks
for various applications in science and technology including systems of systems.
Portrayal of Geographic Data with Map Projections and Cartography

Because people often rely on visual depictions more so than on verbal descriptions, the complicated surface of the
Earth typically needs to be “pressed” onto a flat screen, or a map or chart like in traditional cartography, even when it
is a 3-dimensional perspective view on a 2D screen. Depending on the display scale, reducing from 3D to 2D cannot
be achieved without somewhat or even significantly distorting the shape of the objects. Mathematical geodesy and
map projections based on differential geometry provide the basics to achieve these goals (Grafararend et al. 2014).
By carefully selecting an appropriate map projection, different characteristics of land masses and applications can be
emphasized. One example may be the difference between the classical Mercator projection that is used for nautical
charts from the equator up to medium latitudes, and the Stereographic projection that is often used in aeronautics
since the shortest distance between two locations there is a straight line. For the Mercator projection, a straight line is
a rhumb line, i.e. the line of constant bearing which eases the use of a magnetic compass for steering a vessel
(neglecting variations of magnetic declination on Earth). Here, the shortest distance between two points on the
Earth’s surface (the geodesic) is a curved line on the chart whose curve is bent towards the pole of the respective
hemisphere.
As portrayal of geographic data is a fundamental functionality of GIS, respective map projection modules are
generally included in GIS software packages. Beyond these purely projection-related aspects of visualizing
geographic data, cartography offers rules and procedures for what to display and how to visualize geographic data.
Kraak and Ormeling (2020) show such data may be abstracted by symbols, lines, and areas, including what color and
styles to apply to the graphical elements in a map, how to relate these to each other on a screen or paper map, how to
generalize them, i.e. how to simplify their shape and depiction or even discard on display, when the scale of display
is changed, etc.
References
Works Cited
Hahmann, S. and D. Burghardt. 2013. "How much information is geospatially referenced? Networks and cognition."
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 27(6):1171-1189. DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2012.743664.
(4th edition). San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE),
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04.
National Imagery and Mapping Agency. 2004. World Geodetic System 1984, (3rd edition, including Amendment 1
and 2). Department of Defense. Technical Report TR8350.2.
Royal Academy of Engineering. 2013. Extreme space weather: impacts on engineered systems and infrastructure.
London, UK, Royal Academy of Engineering.
Wallischeck, E. 2016. GPS Dependencies in the Transportation Sector. Cambridge, MA: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, John A Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center.
Primary References
Grafarend, E.W., R.J. You, and R. Syffus. 2014. Map Projections: Cartographic Information Systems, (2nd edition).
Heidelberg, New Yort, Dordrecht, London: Springer.
Hofmann-Wellenhof, B., H. Lichtenegger, and E. Wasle. 2008. GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Wien:
Springer-Verlag.
Kraak, M.J. and F. J. Ormeling. 2020. Cartography: Visualization of Geospatial Data, (4th edition). London, New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Kresse, W. and D.M. Danko (Eds.). 2012. Springer Handbook of Geographic Information. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
Peters, D. 2012. Building a GIS: Geographic Information System Planning for Managers, (2nd edition). Redlands,
CA: Esri Press.
Teunissen, P. and O. Montenbruck (Eds.). 2017. Springer Handbook of Global Navigation Satellite Systems.
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Tomlinson, R.F. 2019. Thinking About GIS: Geographic Information System Planning for Managers., (5th edition).
Redlands, CA: Esri Press.
Torge, W. and J. Müller. 2012. Geodesy. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Freeden,W. and M.Z. Nashed (Eds.). 2018. Handbook of Mathematical Geodesy: Functional Analytic and Potential
Theoretic Methods. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Meyer, Th.H. 2018. Introduction to Geometrical and Physical Geodesy: Foundations of Geomatics. Redlands, CA:
Esri Press.

References
[1] http:/ / www. wiki. gis. com/ wiki/ index. php/ System_Design_Strategies
[2] http:/ / www. opengeospatial. org
[3] http:/ / www. opengeospatial. org/ standards
Relationship between Systems Engineering and

Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
This article discusses the relationship between Systems Engineering (SE) and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering
(GGE) as reflected through relationships between several Specialty Engineering disciplines listed in INCOSE (2015)
and GGE. For most of these disciplines, there are also SEBoK articles in the Knowledge Area SE and Quality
Attributes.
Geospatial Aspects in the INCOSE Specialty Engineering Activities

Systems that directly include geospatial components and system elements, or that perform navigation operations or
deal with referenceable objects in their broadest interpretations require dedicated contributions from the
geodetic/geospatial domain. Those contributions should be achieved by integrating appropriate subject matter
experts into SE teams.
The following sections briefly describe possible geospatial solutions or contributions which may directly support
some of the Specialty Engineering activities in INCOSE (2015).
Environmental Engineering/Impact Analysis

Analyzing a spatial distribution or dispersal of pollutants typically depends on specific modules that have been
integrated into Geographic Information Systems (GIS); e.g. a plume modeler will estimate how chemicals dissolve in
the atmosphere under certain meteorological conditions. Other applications determine run-off for flooding
simulations, or reveal dependencies between different types of environmental parameters during geospatial analysis.
The list of such applications is long. The Knowledge Area (KA) Systems Engineering and Environmental
Engineering provides more information.
Interoperability Analysis
Interoperability has been a major issue in geospatial infrastructures for decades. The Open Geospatial Consortium [1]
(OGC), founded in 1994, published its first standard (OpenGIS Simple Features Specification) in 1997. Other
organizations also publish standards including the International Organization for Standards [2] (ISO) with its
Technical Committee 211 Geographic information/Geomatics [3] (see also here [4]), the International Hydrographic
Organization [5] (IHO) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [6] (NATO). For meteorological data, the World
Meteorological Organization [7] (WMO) standardizes respective services and data formats. Typically, these bodies
closely cooperate.
Using these standards can lead to significant cost savings in the development and operation of systems and thus
contributes to another INCOSE Specialty Engineering activity: Affordability/Cost-Effectiveness/Life Cycle Cost
Analysis. NASA funded a study that was conducted by Booz Allen Hamilton (2005). The study found that the
project that adopted and implemented geospatial interoperability standards:
• had a risk-adjusted Return on Investment (ROI) of 119.0%. This ROI is a “Savings to Investment” ratio over the
5-year project life cycle.
• had a risk-adjusted Return on Investment (ROI) of 163.0% over a 10-year period.
• saved 26.2% compared to the project that relied upon proprietary standards.
Another finding was that standards-based projects have lower maintenance and operations costs than those relying
exclusively on proprietary products for data exchange.
As a general conclusion from the above, there are substantial contributions from the geospatial domain that support
interoperability analyses.
Logistics Engineering
According to INCOSE (2015), “Logistics engineering … is the engineering discipline concerned with the
identification, acquisition, procurement, and provisioning of all support resources required to sustain operation and
maintenance of a system.” Amongst others, the following elements supporting logistics engineering are identified in
INCOSE (2015) that have a direct relation to geospatial, GIS and PNT/Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS)
technologies:
• Sustaining engineering;
• Training and training support;
• Supply support;
• Facilities and infrastructures; and
• Packaging, handling, storage, and transportation (PHS&T).
Typical keywords associated with related activities are:
• “Technical surveillance” where, e.g., fielded systems are monitored with means of geodetic engineering
techniques, such as deformation analysis of structures and sites,
• “Simulation” that requires virtual 3D environments and GIS,
• “Facilities” that are nowadays managed with Building Information Modeling (BIM) techniques which have a close
connection to GIS, based on cadastre data from local authorities,
• “Transfer” and “transportation” where objects, material and goods are moved in space involving amongst others
GIS with navigable map used for planning routes and navigation during transport.
Sometimes, GNSS and real-time GIS technologies are also used for tracking cargo of interest for safety reasons.
Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability

How reliable is a map, or, in the digitized world, a geographic data set displayed on screen or a mobile device? That
depends firstly on the source of data, i.e. how reliable the source is, and on the other hand even for trusted data
sources on the need to update that data set according to operational requirements and the changes that take place in
the landscape of the area of interest. Updating and otherwise maintaining geospatial databases is a costly and
sometimes time-consuming operation (again tied to the Specialty Engineering activity
“Affordability/Cost-Effectiveness/Life Cycle Cost Analysis”). Efficiently updating geospatial databases is discussed
from a technical perspective in Peters (2012) and, at least to a certain extent, must be reflected as well in the design
of a geospatial data infrastructure. Using central services to provision geographic data is one possibility to address
this issue since then, only one data set needs to be updated according to the single source of information principle.
Others will access this data set via services to always receive the latest version of available data. The required
availability constraints clearly must be addressed in the design of the IT infrastructure that hosts such a geospatial
database, and also IT security aspects need to be considered.
Resilience Engineering
In recent years there has been an increasing awareness of the vulnerabilities of systems depending on GPS/GNSS.
Resilient PNT is heavily discussed and alternatives like eLoran and Satelles are often mentioned in this context.
According to the Royal Academy of Engineering (2013), “all critical infrastructure and safety critical systems that
require accurate GNSS derived time and or timing should be specified to operate with holdover technology for up to
three days.” This source also lists other recommendations to be considered for system design.
A source that provides example cases on a regular basis is the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation [8] (RNT
Foundation). Examples of official reports in the US and the UK are also Wallischeck (2016) and Royal Academy of
Engineering (2011). Jamming and GPS disruptions actually occur and sometimes official warnings are issued, e.g.
by the US Coast Guard (DHS 2016). According to an RNT Foundation notice [9], there was an official warning from
flight authorities during the 2017 G20 event in Hamburg, Germany. It cautioned to consider the possibility of GPS
disruptions caused by intentionally initiated activities and actions to protect the G20 conference.
Prudent systems engineers will consider such dependencies and ensure to the degree practical that the systems at
hand are resilient and fault tolerant, i.e. those systems do not terminate safe and reliable operation in the absence of
GNSS signals, or cause major problems when they need to continue to communicate with other systems.
System Safety Engineering

Although it may not be straightforward, even in System Safety Engineering there are aspects that may be supported
by geodetic and surveying engineering. One example may be the monitoring of dams, bridges and buildings etc., i.e.
to what extent constructions move under differing environmental conditions, especially when subject to wind or
water pressure or heat. Another example is the monitoring of natural objects such as volcanoes or slopes to detect
early the possibility of future volcanic eruptions or potential landslides, or the monitoring of fracture zones or areas
prone to earthquakes.
Usability Analysis/Human Systems Integration

Geographical displays sometimes form a central part of user interfaces. In such cases, proper usability analysis and
other aspects of Human Systems Integration (all of these activities are part of Human Factors Engineering, HFE),
geospatial expertise may be required. But beyond this, in HFE several other aspects are considered covering the
general interaction of users with systems (Stanton et al. 2013). Nevertheless, in displaying virtual environments,
HFE is related to the science and application of cartography (Kraak and Ormeling 2020) because the latter deals not
only with portrayal of geographic data but also heavily with the different ways of human perception and abstraction
of spatial phenomena, especially in dependence of the different scales the data is displayed.
Geospatial Aspects in Modeling and Simulation

Modeling and simulation is a broad field and heavily used in various disciplines and as such also in different SE life
cycle processes. Geospatial technologies contribute to these activities amongst others by providing geographic data
to create realistic environments, either for 2- or 3-dimensional applications. According to INCOSE (2015), such a
model is then termed a “formal geometric model”. When considering temporal aspects and phenomena as well,
4-dimensional models are used. The modeler has to discern what types of geographic information must being
modeled, and whether they are discrete objects which can be delimited with boundaries or whether they are
continuous fields representing “the real world as a finite number of variables, each one defined at every possible
position” (Longley et al. 2015), like temperature. For a comprehensive introduction to the general theory of
geographic representation in GIS with continuous fields and discrete objects and how these concepts may be
integrated see Longley et al. (2015), Goodchild et al. (2007) and Worboys and Duckham (2004).
In traditional cartography a map model was described by the well-known map legend that explained the portrayal of
depicted features or phenomena. Today, fairly straightforward models for perspective visualization of landscapes are
created using so-called Digital Terrain Models (DTM) and rendering them with geographic imagery. With these
types of models no further descriptive information may be extracted besides geometric information and visual
interpretation of the imagery to decide what is actually there. A well-known application for this is Google Earth.
Vector models can provide more information. Discrete objects in a vector model may be further described by
attributes, e.g. the width of a street. Vector models are created using so-called “feature catalogues” that define which
real world objects and domain values are to be represented. A typical military feature catalogue was created by the
Defence Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG) for worldwide military mapping projects and is called
the DGIWG Feature Data Dictionary [10] (DFDD). Feature catalogues vary with different levels of modeling scales,
i.e. large-scale models provide a higher granularity than small-scale models that provide more of an overview.
INCOSE (2015) lists the following purposes for models throughout the system life cycle:
• Characterizing an existing system,
• Mission and system concept formulation and evaluation,
• System architecture design and requirements flow-down,
• Support for systems integration and verification,
• Support for training, and
• Knowledge Knowledge capture and system design evolution.
The second and fifth purposes may be supported by geospatial technologies; i.e. data and software components that
create, store, simulate and visualize/portray real world or virtual models of environments where a system is going to
be deployed, or where operations are going to take place (Tolk 2012). “Mission and system concept formulation and
evaluation” tie to the definition of the Concept of Operation (ConOPS). By analyzing different variants of system
deployment and categorizing them based on defined cost functions, it is possible to optimize a system design to
provide a solid basis for decision making.
Conclusions
Geodetic and geospatial technologies and services play a fundamental role in many systems of systems and
stand-alone systems. The general public is often not aware how strongly their lives and activities depend on these
assets to provide and maintain critical infrastructure such as electric power and communications services. Against
this background, systems engineers often need mastery of GGE knowledge and access to GGE subject matter experts
and as a consequence, Geospatial and Geodetic Engineering may be considered as well a Specialty Engineering
Discipline for Systems and Systems of Systems Engineering endeavors.
References
Works Cited
Booz Allen Hamilton. 2005. Geospatial Interoperability Return on Investment Study. NASA Geospatial
Interoperability Office, April 2005.
DHS. 2016. US Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, Safety Alert 01-16 Global Navigation Satellite
Systems – Trust, But Verify. Washington, DC, January 19, 2016.
Goodchild, M.F., M. Yuan and Th.J. Cova. 2007 “Towards a general theory of geographic representation in GIS.”
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21(3):239-260.
Royal Academy of Engineering. 2013. Extreme space weather: impacts on engineered systems and infrastructure.
London, UK, Royal Academy of Engineering.
Royal Academy of Engineering. 2011. Global Navigation Space Systems: reliance and vulnerabilities. London, UK,
Royal Academy of Engineering.
Stanton, N.A., P.M. Salmon, L.A. Rafferty, G.H. Walker, and C. Baber. 2013. Human Factors Methods: A Practical
Guide for Engineering and Design, (2nd edition). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Tolk, A. 2012. Engineering Principles of Combat Modeling and Distributed Simulation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wallischeck, E. 2016. GPS Dependencies in the Transportation Sector. Cambridge, MA: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, John A Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center.

Worboys, M.F., M. Duckham. 2004. GIS: A Computing Perspective, (2nd edition). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Primary References
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, (4th
edition). San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE),
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04.
Kraak, M.J. and F.J. Ormeling. 2020. Cartography: Visualization of Geospatial Data, (4th edition). London, New
York: Taylor & Francis.
CA: Esri Press.
None.

References
[1] http:/ / www. opengeospatial. org/
[2] https:/ / www. iso. org/ home. html
[3] https:/ / www. isotc211. org/
[4] https:/ / committee. iso. org/ home/ tc211
[5] https:/ / iho. int
[6] https:/ / www. nato. int
[7] https:/ / www. wmo. int/
[8] https:/ / rntfnd. org
[9] https:/ / rntfnd. org/ 2017/ 07/ 28/ g20-jams-gps/
[10] https:/ / www. dgiwg. org/ FAD/ overview. jsp
Further Insights into Geospatial/Geodetic

Engineering
This article is part of the Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering (GGE) Knowledge Area. It
discusses in more detail a selected set of topics that a beginner in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and science
or a systems engineer adopting respective techniques might be interested in or should be aware of. Topics discussed
include bodies of knowledge on geospatial technologies, various aspects associated with geographic data, and
standardization in the geospatial domain.
GIS related Bodies of Knowledge

The emphasis of the article Overview of Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering was to focus on to what extent systems
and systems of systems are dependent on GIS related technologies and where potential interfaces or contributions
are. In order to provide now an improved but still brief overview of which topics are related in general to geospatial
and geodetic engineering and how broad the geospatial domain actually is, a high-level introduction into existing
bodies of knowledge in the geospatial domain is provided here.
The work on a body of knowledge (BOK) for the geospatial domain actually goes back into the 1980s (cf. Kemp &
Goochild 1991, cited in Stelmaszczuk-Górska et al. 2020), and since then at least two major workstreams have
evolved. One in the United States that culminated first in 2006 with the publication of Edition 1 of the Geographic
Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge (GISTBoK) by the University Consortium for Geographic
Information Science (UCGIS) [1] (DiBiase et al. 2006). For the Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT) discipline, a
refinement was elaborated by the United States Geospatial Intelligence Foundation (USGIF) [2]. The UCGIS
GISTBoK also formed the nucleus for the other workstream in Europe which started with the GI-N2K: Geographic
Information – Need to Know [3] project (Vandenbroucke and Vancauwenberghe 2016) that aimed to better reflect
European aspects in a BOK and to provide an ontological structure of concepts and relationships (Hofer et al. 2020).
The European workstream was then further pursued as part of the Earth Observation for Geoinformation project
(EO4GEO) [4] that refined and extended the work from GI-N2K (Stelmaszczuk-Górska et al. 2020; Hofer et al.
2020).
UCGIS: Geographic Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge (GISTBoK)

For the 2006 GISTBoK a hierarchical decomposition of the geospatial domain was conducted into 10 Knowledge
Areas which were again divided into 73 Units and then into 329 Topics. There were over 1600 Learning Objectives
listed in these topics. With the update that began in 2013 (Wilson 2014), there are also 10 Knowledge Areas in the
current GISTBoK but they have changed partly versus the 2006 version. As of the beginning of 2022, there are 54
Units and 363 Topics. The current Knowledge Areas are:
• Foundational Concepts, with 7 Units and 35 Topics;
• Knowledge Economy, with 4 Units and 20 Topics;
• Computing Platforms, with 5 Units and 28 Topics;
• Programming and Development, with 5 Units and 23 Topics;
• Data Capture, with 8 Units and 35 Topics;
• Data Management, with 7 Units and 53 Topics;
• Analytics and Modeling, with 9 Units and 70 Topics;
• Cartography and Visualization, with 6 Units and 36 Topics;
• Domain Applications, with 44 Topics (with no categorization into Units); and
• GIS&T and Society, with 3 Units and 19 Topics.

It should be noted however that the GISTBoK is constantly evolving and for the latest version the respective
GISTBoK online resource [5] has to be checked. Additionally, a feature of this BOK is that many Topics are linked
with respective citable articles providing insights into the subjects at hand. The UCGIS also provides at its web site
(UCGIS BOK [6]) information on open educational resources on GIS and GIScience.
USGIF: GEOINT Essential Body of Knowledge

Aside from the activities hosted by the UCGIS that were mainly driven by academia, the USGIF published in 2014
the first version of its GEOINT Essential Body of Knowledge that targeted the GEOINT discipline. Among other
sources, it was based on the 2006 GISTBoK (DiBiase et al. 2006) but extending it where necessary to better reflect
the broader needs of GEOINT and related industries. The second version (Brooks et al. 2019) was published in 2019
after an 18 months period of preparation with a survey in the GEOINT community involving various subject matter
experts that interpreted the results of the survey. It serves as a guide to what skills are required in the GEOINT
discipline and acts as a blueprint for respective Certified GEOINT Professional exams (Brooks et al. 2019; Baber
2018). The GEOINT Essential Body of Knowledge version 2.0 is divided into three parts. The first one is related to
“Technical Competencies” with the following areas:
• GIS & Analysis Tools;
• Remote Sensing & Imagery Analysis;
• Geospatial Data Management; and
• Data Visualization.
The second part is related to “Cross Functional Competencies” which cover general skills like soft skills or common
GEOINT knowledge and practices suitable for the GEOINT practitioner, whereas the third part looks at “Emerging
Competencies”, like data science, machine learning techniques, virtual reality. artificial intelligence, and unmanned
aerial platforms.
It is worth mentioning that, since 2015, USGIF also publishes the “State and Future of GEOINT Reports” on a yearly
basis. These may also serve as a general reference on future trends in geospatial technologies.
Europe: The "GI-N2K: Geographic Information - Need to Know" and the "EO4GEO:
Earth Observation for Geoinformation" BOKs
The GI-N2K project funded by the European Union's (EU) Erasmus Lifelong Learning Program and its BOK started
as well with the 2006 GISTBoK (DiBiase et al. 2006) and had 10 Knowledge Areas. For these Knowledge Areas 63
sub-concepts were identified and further divided into 301 on level 3. However, in some instances level 3 was even
further de-composed into level 4 and partly into level 5 concepts. At the end, 411 concepts were defined on these
levels. Additional features that were provided with this BOK were curriculum design tools and a GeoWiki to enable
discussion between experts.
The most recent development in European GIS-related BOKs is the EO4GEO BOK that continues and further
develops as part of the Erasmus+ Sector Skills Alliance project EO4GEO the work conducted in the GI-N2K project.
As Earth Observation (EO) and Geoinformation (GI) data sources, especially from the space sector, are gaining
nowadays much more importance for data capture and updates of derivative data, the respective skills for data
capture, information processing, standalone and combined analysis and associated applications need to be defined
and matched or merged with the previous BOKs to reflect this change in academia, business and applications
(Stelmaszczuk-Górska et al. 2020). An analysis revealed that "neither the American nor the European GIS&T
(comment: Geographic Information Science and Technology) and GI-N2K BOKs include comprehensive
information on EO" (Stelmaszczuk-Górska et al. 2020). Additionally, since there was a criticism that the previous
BOKs were too much oriented along education driven by academia and too theoretical with a lack of practical
aspects, an emphasis was made to “better align” the academically oriented EO4GEO BOK “with the business,
professional, and industrial perspective” (Hofer et al. 2020) by analyzing a set of relevant business processes with
regard to applicable concepts.
The EO4GEO BOK [7] has at its highest level 14 subconcepts as follows:
• Analytical Methods, with 14 subconcepts;
• Conceptual Foundations, with 8 subconcepts;
• Cartography and Visualization, with 6 subconcepts;
• Design and Setup of Geographic Information Systems, with 4 subconcepts;
• Data Modeling, Storage and Exploitation, with 5 subconcepts;
• Geocomputation, with 4 subconcepts;
• Geospatial Data, with 4 subconcepts;
• GI and Society, with 6 subconcepts;
• Image processing and analysis, with 6 subconcepts;
• Organizational and Institutional Aspects, with 5 subconcepts;
• Physical principles, with 2 subconcepts;
• Platforms, sensors and digital imagery, with 4 subconcepts;
• Thematic and application domains, with 5 subconcepts; and
• Web-based GI, with 7 subconcepts.
Similar as with the GIN-2K BOK, there are partly also further levels below the subconcepts. In addition to the BOK,
it provides an occupational profile tool, a job offer tool, a curriculum design tool, a BOK annotation tool, a BOK
matching tool and other educational features. For the concepts, their names are given along with descriptions and
references. A set of 5 relationships between the concepts is maintained, and skills explaining the practical use of the
EO*GEO knowledge are associated with the concepts (Hofer et al. 2020). The BOK exploration is supported by a
graphical tool.
Geographic Data and Metadata
Geographic Data
Geospatial data is actually the fuel needed for any type of geographic application, whether it might be only for
visualization purpose, e.g. as background information for real-time situational awareness applications, or for
advanced spatial analytics involving different data sources and specific analysis methods. A first categorization into
the two fundamental concepts of geographic data has already been given in the SEBoK article Relationship between
Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering. They are:
• Continuous fields, i.e. spatially distributed phenomena with no clear limits or boundaries and representing “the
real world as a finite number of variables, each one defined at every possible position” (Longley et al. 2015). For
the case that repeated pattern of positions is used, the term raster data is commonly used, especially for the case
that an equidistant matrix pattern is used. However, a matrix could potentially have different resolutions in
columns and rows, or theoretically also other regular patterns could be involved, such as hexagonal patterns, but
these applications are very rare.
• Discrete objects or features, which are delimited by boundaries and potentially associated with a set of attribute
data to describe them further beyond their spatial properties. This type of data is also termed vector data in a GIS
context.
Beyond these two fundamental concepts, the different aspects that need to be considered for geographic data when
designing a system using this data are very diverse and cannot be treated in full detail here. A selection of important
key words coming from practical experiences to be considered when implementing GIS databases include:
• What data is actually needed (examples see below)?
• At what scales shall the data be visualized, i.e. the level of detail needed.
• Dimensionality: typical dimensionalities used in GIS technologies are:
• 2D, describing the earth surface in a flat plane, like a paper map;
• 2.5D, with a unique z-value to a position in the horizontal plane;
• 3D, where all three dimensions are considered; and
• Time dimension: for the case of 3D data then 4D, but as also the former 2 cases may have variations in time
this is treated here as time dimension.
• What are the critical infrastructures that need to be shown, such as transport networks?
• What standards need to be considered, such as feature catalogues, interface and data format standards, data
acquisition standards etc.?
• What is the positional accuracy required for the geographic data? This is typically associated with data acquisition
method to be selected and obviously with the costs involved.
• What is the level of semantic detail needed, e.g. how many feature attributes shall be captured for features / vector
data and how big is the set of domain values from which they shall be selected?
• Are there complex topological relations to be captured and maintained, i.e. to establish connectivity for the vector
data, for example, for routing applications or utility networks?
• Questions on updates:
• How often does the data need to be updated? This is directly related to maintenance costs for the database, i.e.
recurring costs to be considered, but also to availability of resources for the updates.
• How shall the data be updated? Is it possible to use a central service for the data which is updated, i.e. can the
responsibility for the updates be delegated?
• What communication lines are used when data and updates are distributed in a system? Or is a service model
the better choice as it realizes a single source of information principle? A systems engineers has to keep in
mind that geographic data can reach considerable data volumes (depending on type of data terabytes and
petabytes) that cannot be easily distributed over the air for example.
• What are the data sources that may or have to be used? How are bounding conditions on the use of the data?
• Authoritative data from a spatial data infrastructure, from international or national governmental agencies (or
even intergovernmental agencies), such as national surveys like the USGS or the British Ordnance Survey, or
on an international level the United Nations.
• Commercial data sources, such as satellite imagery service providers, or mapping service providers.
• Open sources, from activities like the Open Street Map [8] or Open Seamap [9] initiatives.
• Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights associated with the data sources.
• Classification of data.
• Bounding legal conditions (e.g. export control laws and regulations for export of data, as for example some
satellite image resolutions may have export restrictions).
• Liability aspects for the data, especially for the cases of legal boundaries, i.e. national borders. This is of
particular relevance when borders are under dispute between neighboring countries!
For implementation aspects again Tomlinson (2019) and Peters (2012) are referred to as well as the online successor
to the latter text book, System Design Strategies [1].
Metadata for Geographic Data

Whereas the section above discusses aspects of geographic data itself, it is also of fundamental importance to make
this data available to or detectable by potential users. This is done by describing the data by metadata and having the
metadata available, for example in a catalog where users can search for it. Whereas the Dublin Core data set (ISO
2017; ISO 2019b) defined by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative is now used to describe general items, for the
special case of geographic data, a set of dedicated ISO standards has been developed (ISO 2014, with its
amendments ISO 2018 & ISO 2022; ISO 2020d). As such, ISO 19115 "provides information about the identification,
the extent, the quality, the spatial and temporal aspects, the content, the spatial reference, the portrayal, distribution,
and other properties of digital geographic data and services" (ISO 2014).
Geocoding Systems, Localization and Geographic Search

One further particular aspect looked at here is how a spatial reference for a feature may be expressed. Certainly the
most well-known way to describe a location technically or mathematically is by coordinates, either in 2 dimensions
for the simple case of a plane, or in 3 dimensions or even adding a time dimension. Standardized ways to express
geographic coordinates are covered by ISO 6709 (ISO 2009) but also Cartesian coordinate systems are in use.
However, a spatial reference may also be given by other types of geographic identifiers where a location is expressed
by a specific (sometimes non-numeric) code or name. A gazetteer is used to manage geographic identifiers, such as
geographic names, e.g. names of states, provinces, or other geographically identifiable features such as lakes etc.
Other codes in use are for example addresses (where it should be remembered that there are also different postal
address types in use), country codes (ISO 3166-1, ISO 2020a) and codes of country principal subdivisions such as
states and provinces (ISO 3166-2; ISO 2020b), but there are many other, sometimes application or domain specific
or even commercially developed geocodes.
An example of a commercially developed and thus proprietary geococde is the What3words [10] system that is even
in use as a postal addressing system in some countries. By dividing the Earth's surface into squares of about 3 meters
by 3 meters and assigning unique 3 ordered words to each of them, the codes for each location are established. There
are, however, several other systems available, like Geohash [11] or Mapcode [12], which have no license restrictions.
In general, geocodes may be categorized into non-hierarchical and hierarchical geocodes, while for the latter the
accuracy of location position increases in a refinement/subdivision process, similar to adding more significant digits
to a coordinate. A well-known dataset of geographic names often used in GIS applications is provided by
geonames.org [13].
These codes can then also be used to navigate in a geographic display, i.e. by inserting a geocode one can jump
directly in the display to the respective position or features (described by positions) associated with the code. In case
the code is ambiguous (as it is sometimes the case for geographic names like city names) a disambiguation could be
given, in order to clarify the selection. While this approach is mainly used to navigate in a display or to find a
location, it should not be confused with the topic of efficiently searching in multidimensional spatial databases. This
is not treated here as it relates to database management system design and implementation, including spatial
indexing, for example with space filling curves.
Example: The United Nations 14 Global Fundamental Geospatial Data Themes

The set of geographic data to be used in a system will always be dependent on the purpose and goals of the system at
hand, and therefore no general purpose structure can be provided here. Some examples of geographic data have
already been given in the SEBoK article Relationship between Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic
Engineering in the frame of Geospatial Aspects in Modeling and Simulation. In order to extend this for a better and
broader overview of what may considered as relevant in general, the following list of geospatial data themes may
serve as a first indicator. It has been elaborated as "The 14 Global Fundamental Geospatial Data Themes" by the
United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM 2019).
• Global Geodetic Reference Frame;
• Addresses, such as postal addresses, see above;
• Buildings and Settlements;
• Elevation and Depth, e.g. provided by Digital Elevation Models and Digital Terrain Models (DTM);
• Functional Areas, such as administrative or legislative areas;
• Geographical Names, e.g. geographic identifiers managed and provided by a gazetteer, see above;
• Geology and Soils;

• Land Cover and Land Use;
• Land Parcels, e.g. a cadastre or a land register;
• Physical Infrastructure, including industrial and utility facilities;
• Population Distribution;
• Orthoimagery, which is a special case of geographic imagery in orthogonal projection;
• Transport Networks, e.g. rails, roads, waterways and air transport routes associated potentially with connectivity
relations; and
• Water, including rivers, lakes and marine features.
The UN-GGIM (2019) provides more insights and information into the themes, e.g. what standards are available and
possible sources for data. In GIS where often multiple geographic data sets from different sources are processed in a
combined way, these data sets are organized into a stacked set of layers which may be for example switched on and
off individually for visualization purpose.
Standardization Organizations active in the Geospatial Domain

In the following selected international civil organizations are briefly introduced that publish standards related to the
geospatial domain.
The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)

The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) was founded in 1994 and publishes open standards and specifications in
the geospatial domain. The documents are created in a member-driven consensus process. The most successful
standards are the Web Map Service (WMS; OGC 2006) and the Web Feature Service (WFS; OGC 2010), but OGC
has published about 70 implementation standards and about 20 abstract specifications.
OGC works closely with ISO TC211 (see next section), and some documents are jointly elaborated and published.
For example, the above mentioned WMS is also an ISO standard (namely ISO 2005), as is the WFS (ISO 2010).
Another example is the specification of the Geography Markup language (OGC, 2012; and ISO, 2015 & 2020a) that
is published by both OGC and ISO. Special care has to be taken which version is published in which document since
they are not necessarily published in the same versions at the same time. Besides the cooperation with ISO TC211,
OGC has in addition other alliance partners, such as the Object Management Group (OMG), the Organization for
Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Web3D Consortium, the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C), the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) (both see below), and also with other ISO TCs.
Several companies well-known to the general public such as Amazon Web Services, Apple, Google, Microsoft,
Oracle and SAP, and universities, governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations as well as
individuals are members of the OGC at different levels of membership, summing up to more than 500 members.
ISO TC 211 “Geographic information/Geomatics”

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is certainly the best known international standardization
organization in the world and is organized into technical committees which develop the standards. The Technical
Committee (TC) 211 is related to “Geographic information/Geomatics”. TC211 has published more than 80
standards, most of them as part of the 191xx family of standards, including abstract specifications and interface
standards together with the OGC. Several ISO TC211 standards are referenced in the list of references below. TC211
also maintains the Online Multi-Lingual Glossary of Terms (MLGT) [14] at Geolexica that was used to define terms
used in this Knowledge Area. Typically ISO standards are also promulgated as national standards, or as European
standards from the respective European standardization organizations.
International Hydrographic Organization (IHO)

Founded in 1921 as the International Hydrographic Bureau and renamed in 1970 to the International Hydrographic
Organization (IHO), IHO is an intergovernmental organization that standardizes and coordinates activities in the area
of hydrography, nautical cartography and thus nautical charts to ensure initially and still primarily the safety of
navigation. With the increasing interest in the marine environment, e.g. for the installation of offshore wind farms,
the importance of the activities of IHO has even more increased as it publishes standards for the creation and
exchange of digital hydrographic data (IHO 2020; IHO 2017a; IHO 2000, with its appendices) that may serve as a
GIS base map layer, and also for the portrayal of data (IHO 2014). The way how hydrographic offices can support
the creation of spatial data infrastructures by providing data for the marine environment is discussed in IHO (2017b).
With the revision of its standards to adhere to ISO TC211 standards, IHO is now transitioning to the S-100 family of
standards (IHO 2018).
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

Originally founded in 1873 as the International Meteorological Organization and renamed in 1950 into the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), WMO is an intergovernmental organization and specialized agency of the
United Nations. According to its mandate as described on its website [15], it provides the framework for international
cooperation "in the areas of meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical
sciences" and facilitates "free and unrestricted exchange of data and information, products and services in real- or
near-real time on matters relating to safety and security of society, economic welfare and the protection of the
environment." WMO defines several data formats for the exchange of weather information (WMO 2019 & 2021a/b).
Clearly the scientific background needed to create meteorological information goes far beyond of what is needed in
standard GIS applications. From a GIS perspective, weather information may be treated as one or several
information layer(s), and due to the typically required real- or near-real time information respective online interfaces
have to be established with weather data providers, whether they are national weather services or commercial
companies.
References
Works Cited
Baber, M. 2018. “Geospatial Intelligence and National Security.” In: The Geographic Information Science &
Technology Body of Knowledge (1st Quarter 2018 Edition), John P. Wilson (Ed.). DOI:10.22224/gistbok/2018.1.2
Hofer, B., S. Casteleyn, E. Aguilar-Moreno, E.M. Missoni-Steinbacher, F. Albrecht, R. Lemmens, S. Lang, J.
Albrecht, M. Stelmaszczuk-Górska, G. Vancauwenberghe and A. Monfort-Muriach. 2020. “Complementing the
European earth observation and geographic information body of knowledge with a business-oriented perspective.”
Transactions in GIS 24(3):587-601. DOI: 10.1111/tgis.12628.
IHO. 2000. IHO Transfer Standard for Digital Hydrographic Data. Publication S-57, Edition 3.1.0. November 2000,
Monaco: International Hydrographic Bureau.
IHO. 2014. Specifications for Chart Content and Display Aspects of ECDIS. Publication S-52, Edition 6.1(.1).
September 2014, Monaco: International Hydrographic Organization.
IHO. 2017a. ENCs: Production, Maintenance and Distribution Guidance. Publication S-65, Edition 2.1.0, May 2017.
Monaco: International Hydrographic Organization.
IHO. 2017b. Spatial Data Infrastructures "The Marine Dimension". Guidance for Hydrographic Offices. Publication
C-17, Second Edition, Version 2.0.0, January 2017. Monaco: International Hydrographic Organization.
IHO. 2018. IHO Universal Hydrographic Data Model. Publication S-100, Edition 4.0.0, December 2018. Monaco:
International Hydrographic Organization.
IHO. 2020. IHO Standards for Hydrographic Surveys. Publication S-44, Edition 6.0.0, September 2020. Monaco:
International Hydrographic Organization.
ISO. 2005. ISO 19128:2005, Geographic information - Web map server interface. ISO 19128, First edition
2005-12-01. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2009. ISO 6709:2009, Standard representation of geographic point location by coordinates. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2010. ISO 19142:2010, Geographic information - Web Feature Service. ISO 19142, First edition 2010-12-15.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2014. ISO 19115-1:2014, Geographic information - Metadata - Part 1: Fundamentals. ISO 19115-1, First
edition 2014-04-01. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2015. ISO 19136-2:2015, Geographic information - Geography Markup Language (GML) - Part 2: Extended
schemas and encoding rules. ISO 19136-2, First edition 2015-08-01. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2017. ISO 15836-1:2017, Information and documentation — The Dublin Core metadata element set — Part 1:
Core elements. ISO 15836-1, 2017-05. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2018. ISO 19115-1:2018, Geographic information - Metadata - Part 1: Fundamentals Amendment 1. ISO
19115-1, 2018-02. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2019a. ISO 19115-2:2019, Geographic information - Metadata - Part 2: Extensions for acquisition and
processing. ISO 19115-2, Second edition 2019-01. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO. 2019b. ISO 15836-2:2019, Information and documentation - The Dublin Core metadata element set - Part 2:
DCMI Properties and classes. ISO 15836-2, First edition 2019-12. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization.
ISO. 2020a. ISO 19136-1:2020, Geographic information - Geography Markup Language (GML) - Part 1:
Fundamentals. ISO 19136-1, First edition 2020-01. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO. 2020b. ISO 3166-1:2020, Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 1:
Country codes. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2020c. ISO 3166-2:2020, Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 2:
Country subdivision code. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO. 2020d. ISO 19115-1:2020, Geographic information - Metadata - Part 1: Fundamentals Amendment 2. ISO
19115-1, 2020-11. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
OGC. 2006. OpenGIS® Web Map Server Implementation Specification. Version: 1.3.0, OGC® document: OGC®
06-042. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https://www.ogc.org/standards/wms.
OGC. 2010. OpenGIS Web Feature Service 2.0 Interface Standard. Version: 2.0.0, OGC® document: OGC
09-025r1. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https://www.ogc.org/standards/wfs.
OGC. 2012. OGC® Geography Markup Language (GML) – Extended schemas and encoding rules. Version: 3.3.0,
OGC® document: OGC 10-129r1. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available athttps://www.ogc.org/standards/gml.
Stelmaszczuk-Górska, M.A., E. Aguilar-Moreno, S. Casteleyn, D. Vandenbroucke, M. Miguel-Lago, C. Dubois, R.
Lemmens, G. Vancauwenberghe, M. Olijslagers, S. Lang, F. Albrecht, M. Belgiu, V. Krieger, T. Jagdhuber, A.
Fluhrer, M.J. Soja, A. Mouratidis, H.J. Persson, R. Colombo, and G. Masiello. 2020. Body of Knowledge for the
Earth Observation and Geoinformation Sector - A Basis for Innovative Skills Development, Int. Arch. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLIII-B5-2020, 15–22. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https:/ / doi. org/ 10.
5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2020-15-2020.
UN-GGIM. 2019. The Global Fundamental Geospatial Data Themes. New York, United Nations.
Vandenbroucke, D. and G. Vancauwenberghe. 2016. “Towards a New Body of Knowledge for Geographic
Information Science and Technology.” Micro, Macro & Mezzo Geoinformation 2016 (6):7-19.
Wilson, J.P. 2014. Geographic Information Science & Technology Body of Knowledge 2.0 Project. Final Report
2014 University Consortium for Geographic Information Science Symposium, Pasadena, California.
WMO. 2019. WMO-No. 306 Manual on Codes - International Codes Volume I.1, Annex II to the WMO Technical
Regulations, Part A – Alphanumeric Codes. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization.
WMO. 2021a. WMO-No. 306 Manual on Codes - International Codes Volume I.2, Annex II to the WMO Technical
Regulations, Part B – Binary Codes & Part C – Common Features to Binary and Alphanumeric Codes. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization.
WMO. 2021b. WMO-No. 306 Manual on Codes - International Codes Volume I.2, Annex II to the WMO Technical
Regulations, Part D – Representations derived from data models. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological
Organization.
Primary References
DiBiase, D., M. DeMers, A. Johnson, K. Kemp, A.T. Luck, B. Plewe, and E. Wentz (Eds.). 2006. Geographic
Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge. Ed. 1. Ithaca, NY: University Consortium for Geographic
Information Science. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https://www.ucgis.org/gis-t-body-of-knowledge.
Brooks, T., Kantor, C., Spuria, L. and Quinn, K. (Eds.). 2019. The Geospatial Intelligence Essential Body of
Knowledge, Version 2.0/2019, Compiled by the United States Geospatial Intelligence Foundation. January 2019.
Accessed January 20, 2021. Available at https:/ / usgif. wpengine. com/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2020/ 11/ ebk2019.
pdf.
CA: Esri Press.
Tomlinson, R.F. 2019. Thinking About GIS: Geographic Information System Planning for Managers., (5th edition).
Redlands, CA: Esri Press.
Website of the EO4GEO BOK. Accessed January 20, 2022. Available at http://www.eo4geo.eu/bok/.
Website of IHO. Accessed February 02, 2022. Available at https://iho.int/.
Website of ISO TC211. Accessed February 02, 2022. Available at https://www.isotc211.org/.
Websites of ISO TC211 at the ISO website [16]. Accessed February 02, 2022. Available at https:/ / www. iso. org/
committee/54904.html and https://committee.iso.org/home/tc211.
Website of the OGC: Accessed February 02, 2022. Available at https://www.ogc.org/.
Website of the UCGIS GISBoK. Accessed January 20, 2022. Available at https://gistbok.ucgis.org/.
Website of WMO. Accessed February 02, 2022. Available at https://wmo.int/.

References
[1] https:/ / www. ucgis. org/
[2] https:/ / usgif. org/
[3] http:/ / www. gi-n2k. eu/
[4] http:/ / www. eo4geo. eu/
[5] https:/ / gistbok. ucgis. org/
[6] https:/ / www. ucgis. org/ gis-t-body-of-knowledge
[7] http:/ / www. eo4geo. eu/ bok/
[8] https:/ / www. openstreetmap. org/
[9] https:/ / www. openseamap. org/
[10] https:/ / what3words. com/
[11] http:/ / geohash. org/
[12] https:/ / www. mapcode. com/
[13] https:/ / www. geonames. org/
[14] https:/ / isotc211. geolexica. org/
[15] https:/ / wmo. int/
[16] https:/ / www. iso. org/
903

Industrial Engineering
Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering

Lead Author: Gregory S. Parnell, Contributing Authors: C. Robert Kenley, Eric Specking, Ed Pohl
Systems Engineering (SE) overlaps with many fields, such as Industrial Engineering (IE), Engineering Management,
Operations Research, Project Management, and Design Engineering. In fact, the main Industrial Engineering body of
knowledge, called the Industrial and Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (ISEBoK) (IISE 2021), includes the
word "systems" in its title and includes a section on systems design and engineering, which references the SEBoK.
This article describes the similarities and differences between SE and IE based upon their respective standards,
handbooks, and bodies of knowledge. Based on this assessment, this article describes potential roles that systems
engineers and industrial engineers perform during a system’s life cycle.
Introduction
When systems engineers and industrial engineers are in the same organization, they have different roles and
responsibilities. While job titles vary by organization, many organizations have individuals that perform both SE and
IE activities. This article tries to help systems engineers and industrial engineers better understand the different
perspectives of the fields and the knowledge needed to meet the needs of their organizations and customers. The
article compares the use of international standards and the contents of the bodies of knowledge for SE and IE.
Systems Engineering
The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) is a “not-for-profit membership organization founded
to develop and disseminate the interdisciplinary principles and practices that enable the realization of successful
systems.” INCOSE defines systems engineering as
a transdisciplinary and integrative approach to enable the successful realization, use, and retirement of
engineered systems, using systems principles and concepts, and scientific, technological, and
management methods. (INCOSE 2021)
Here, the terms “engineering” and “engineered” are used in their widest sense: “the action of working artfully to bring
something about.” “Engineered systems” may be composed of any or all of people, products, services, information,
processes, and natural elements.
INCOSE aligns its SE Handbook with ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, System Life Cycle Processes, which focuses on
processes. SEBoK Part 3 Systems Engineering and Management, which addresses the major SE technical and
management processes, is also organized around 15288 process areas. In this view, SE is process oriented. Each
edition of the SE Handbook aligns to an ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 edition. Figure 1 shows the 15288 processes and how
they align with the SE Handbook and SEBoK topic areas. Later in this article, these SEBoK topics and knowledge
areas are compared with the knowledge areas of IE. The knowledge areas in Figure 1 align with the system life cycle
if started at the top of the first column and traversed to the bottom, continued at the bottom of the second column and
traversed to the top, and then continued at the bottom of the third column and traversed to the top.
Figure 1. Technical Topics of SEBoK Knowledge Areas Mapped to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 Technical Processes. (SEBoK 2022)
Industrial Engineering
The Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE) states that it is “the only international, non-profit,
professional society dedicated to advancing the technical and managerial excellence of industrial engineers.” (IISE
2021). IISE started in 1948 as the American Institute of Industrial Engineers. In 1981, the organization was renamed
the Institute of Industrial Engineers to reflect its growing international membership. In 2016, the membership voted
to change the name to the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers. This addition reflects a vote by its
membership and aligns with the “changing scope of the profession that, while keeping its industrial base, has seen
more industrial and systems engineers working with large scale integrated systems in a variety of sectors”.
At the turn of this century, industrial engineering was well reflected in two prominent publications: Handbook of
Industrial Engineering (Salvendy 2001) and the fifth edition of Maynard's Industrial Engineering Handbook
(Zandin 2001). Salvendy (2001) stated that industrial engineers are trained to design and analyze the components of
which man-machine systems are composed. They bring together individual elements that are designed via other
engineering disciplines and properly synergize these subsystems together with the people components for a
completely integrated man-machine system. Industrial engineers are focused on the improvement of any system that
is being designed or evaluated. They make individual human tasks more productive and efficient by optimizing flow,
eliminating unnecessary motions, utilizing alternate materials to improve manufacturing, improving the flow of
product through processes, and optimizing the configuration of workspaces. Fundamentally, the industrial engineer
is charged with reducing costs and increasing profitability through ensuring the efficient use of human, material,
physical, and/or financial resources.
The view of IE has evolved over the last two decades. IISE developed the IISE Body of Knowledge in 2021 (IISE
2021). The sixth edition of Maynard's Industrial Engineering Handbook (Zandin 2022) is expected to be published
in 2022. The IISEBoK has 14 knowledge areas, as shown in Figure 2. The first 13 knowledge areas identify the
Industrial Engineering knowledge. The fourteenth is Systems Design and Engineering, which references the SEBoK.
The IISEBoK provides a short description of each knowledge area, a detailed outline of knowledge area topics, and a
list of references. The IISEBoK does not use standards as its foundation. In fact, the Standard Practice for Systems
Safety (MIL-STD-0-882D) is the only standard cited in the reference section. IISE does not currently have a
handbook developed by or for the Institute, although Zandin (2022) is expected to align with the IISEBoK.
Figure 2. Industrial and Systems Engineering Knowledge Areas (IISE 2022, Used with Permission) [1]
The 14 topic areas included in the IISEBoK could be tied to many international standards even though the IISEBoK
does not use standards as its foundation or provide references to standards in most of its topic areas.
Venn Diagram Comparison

This section compares the two bodies of knowledge. Figure 3 is a Venn Diagram that identifies knowledge areas that
are usually performed by systems engineers, ones usually performed by industrial engineers, and ones that are used
by both disciplines.
Figure 3. Venn Diagram (SEBoK Original
There are 11 primarily SE knowledge areas, 7 primarily IE knowledge areas, and 12 overlapping knowledge areas.
Table 1 provides some illustrative examples of the differences in SE and IE focus in the overlapping knowledge
areas.
Table 1. Illustrative Examples of Differences in SE and IE Focus

Knowledge Area Systems Engineering Focus Industrial Engineering Focus
2. Operations OR and analysis is used in systems analysis to assess system OR and analysis is used to optimize operations, maintenance,
Research (OR) performance and to evaluate system designs (Levis and and logistics. OR is also used to evaluate and optimize
and Analysis Wagenhals 2000; Wagenhals, Shin, Kim, and Levis 2000; manufacturing systems.
Wagenhals, Haider, and Levis 2003; Raz, Kenley, and
DeLaurentis 2018)
5. Quality & Quality and reliability requirements are treated as system-wide Quality and reliability are used to evaluate and improve the
Reliability performance requirements (Buede and Miller 2016: 157-159; manufacturing process of goods and services. Reliability is
Engineering Wymore 1993: 401) that are assessed at the systems level. One also used to evaluate and improve system operations.
example is availability, A0, which measures the degree to which
a system is either operating or can operate at any time when
used in its typical operational and support environment. (DA
PAM 70-3 2008: 87)
6. Ergonomics Ergonomics and human factors are considerations in assessing Ergonomics and human factors are used to assess and
and Human the potential usability of a system for end-users in an improve manufacturing and operational processes. They are
Factors operational environment. According to Buede and Miller (2016: also used to assess and improve the actual usability of
180), “Performance elements of usability are ease of learning products and services.
(learnability), ease of use (efficiency), ease of remembering
(memorability), error rate, and subjectively pleasing
(satisfaction).”
9. Engineering Engineering managers and SEs work with program managers to Engineering managers and IEs support operations managers
Management develop and improve new products and services. responsible for manufacturing processes and the operation of
systems providing products and services.
11. Information Information Engineering is critical to the development of new The Information Engineering knowledge area focuses on
Engineering products and services that are increasingly software intensive. using data in information systems to facilitate
Information engineering is relevant for model-based systems decision-making and business communication.
engineering software tools and databases, requirements
management software tools and databases, and overall
configuration management of the systems design and
requirements baseline.
13. Product SE focuses on the design of systems that provide products and The knowledge area of the ISEBoK (2021: 53-46) focuses on
Design and services and the system life cycle. SE includes the technical the design of products and the product life cycle. It closely
Development processes for system design and verification and the technical parallels the technical processes for system design and
management processes for project planning, assessment, and development of SEBoK.
control; risk management; and decision management in the
Systems Engineering Handbook (2015: 47-83, 104-121).
Systems Systems engineers participate in defining requirements, defining Industrial engineers are more focused on air, ground, water,
Deployment the architecture, and verification and validation of deployment and intermodal logistics to include transportation and
systems needed to the deploy the system of interest, e.g., special distribution of systems and products.
transport equipment such as the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA)
that NASA used to transport Space Shuttle orbiters. (Jenkins
2000)
Updates, Systems engineers are involved defining requirements, defining Industrial engineers are involved in manufacturing processes
Upgrades, the architecture, and verification and validation of updates, and supporting operations of systems to provide goods and
Modernization upgrades, and modernization of systems. One way that this has services. Industrial engineers can help identify the need for
been explained is that a second iteration of the systems updates, upgrades, and modernization of manufacturing and
engineering V-model is completed as the systems remains in service processes and work with engineering managers,
service while a system change project is implemented (Ven, systems engineers, and design engineers to provide improved
Talik, and Hulse 2012). capabilities.
Service Life Systems engineers are involved in service life extension efforts Industrial engineers are involved in service life extension
Extension in the same way that they are involved in updates, upgrades, and efforts in the same way that they are involved in updates,
modernization of systems. upgrades, and modernization of systems.
System Systems engineers participate in defining requirements for Industrial engineers provide engineering support to
Maintenance maintenance across the life cycle of the system, determine the production processes maintenance and system maintenance to
impact of maintenance constraints on the system requirements sustain operation of production and service processes and
and the system architecture (Walden, et al. 2015: 97-98). systems.
Logistics Systems engineers participate in defining requirements for Industrial engineers are very involved in logistics planning
logistics across the life cycle of the system, determine the and operations including supply chain management,
impact of maintenance constraints on the system requirements transportation, and distribution.
and the system architecture (Walden, et al. 2015: 97-98).
Disposal and Systems engineers identify requirements, define the Industrial engineers plan for disposal and retirement as part
Retirement architecture, and verification and validation of disposal and of their product design process. Increasingly, industrial
retirement needed to the disposition or retire the system of engineers must consider environmental impact and
interest, e.g., nuclear material stabilization processes and sustainability issues.
equipment needed to disposition fissile nuclear materials to
enable shutdown of the nuclear production facilities (Kenley, et
al. 1999).
Roles in a System Life Cycle

Systems engineers and industrial engineers play important roles in a system life cycle. Figure 4 modifies a format
from Buede and Miller (2016). It shows the system life cycle stages and, based on analysis in the previous section,
identifies and summarizes the major roles of systems engineers, industrial engineers, and design engineers. Some
processes have been aggregated to simplify the figure.
Figure 4. Roles in a System Life Cycle. (SEBoK Original, adapted from Driscoll 2011)
Summary
In summary:
• The SEBoK SE and Management Part is based on an ISO standard. IE has several related ISO standards. IISE
does not link its body of knowledge to standards.
• The SEBoK is more process focused, while IISEBoK focuses more on concepts and techniques.
• SE and IE have overlapping bodies of knowledge.
• The SEBoK and INCOSE's SE Handbook align with the system life cycle. The IISEBoK does not have an
analogous organizing structure.
• Systems engineers and industrial engineers both play important roles in the system life cycle with some
overlapping responsibilities.
References
Works Cited
Buede, D.M, W.D. Miller. 2016. The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Methods. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley.
DA PAM 70-3. 2008. Army Acquisition Procedures. Pamphlet, January 28, 2008, Washington, DC, USA:
Department of the Army.
Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Accessed November 19, 2021.
Available at https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses.
IISE. 2021. IISE Body of Knowledge. Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE). Accessed May 13, 2022.
Available at https://www.iise.org/BodyofKnowledge.
Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers website. Origins of IISE. Accessed November 13, 2021. Available at
https://www.iise.org/details.aspx?id=295.
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) website. What is systems engineering? Accessed February
17, 2022. Available at https:/ / www. incose. org/ about-systems-engineering/ system-and-se-definition/
systems-engineering-definition.
International Organization for Standardization, standards website. Accessed November 14, 2021. Available at https:/
/www.iso.org/standards.html.
ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, 2015. Systems and software engineering-System life cycle processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
Jenkins, D.R. 2000. Boeing 747-100/200/300/sp. Airliner tech series, version 6. North Branch, MN, US: Specialty
Press Publishers and Wholesalers.
Kenley, B., B. Scott, B. Seidel, D. Knecht, F. Southworth, K. Osborne, N. Chipman, and T.A. Creque. 1999.
"Program to Stabilize Nuclear Materials as Managed by the Plutonium Focus Area." Proceedings of Waste
Management 1999. Tucson, AZ, US.
Levis, A.H. and L.W. Wagenhals. 2000. "C4ISR architectures: I. Developing a Process for C4ISR Architecture
Design" Systems Engineering. 3(4): 225-247.
Raz, A.K., C.R. Kenley, and D.A. DeLaurentis. 2018, "System Architecting and Design Space Characterization".
Salvendy, G. (ed.) 2001. Handbook of Industrial Engineering, Technology and Operations Management, 3rd ed.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Van De Ken, M., J. Talik, and J. Hulse. 2012. "An Introduction to Applying Systems Engineering to In-Service
Systems," Proceedings of the 2012 INCOSE International Symposium. 22(1):879-894. Rome, Italy. Accessed May
25, 2023. Available at https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2012.tb01377.x.
Wagenhals, L.W., S. Haider, and A.H. Levis. 2003. "Synthesizing Executable Models of Object-Oriented
Architectures." Systems Engineering, 6(4): 266-300.
Wagenhals, L.W., I. Shin, D. Kim, and A.H. Levis. 2000. "C4ISR architectures: II. A Structured Analysis Approach
for Architecture Design." Systems Engineering, 3(4): 248-287.
Walden, D.D., G.J. Roedler, K.J. Forsberg, R.D. Hamelin, and T.M. Shortell (ed.). 2015. INCOSE Systems
Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, 4th Edition. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley.
Wymore, A.W. 1993. Model-Based Systems Engineering: An Introduction to The Mathematical Theory of Discrete
Systems and to The Tricotyledon Theory of System Design. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Zandin, K.B. (ed.). 2001. Maynard's Industrial Engineering Handbook, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Primary References
Salvendy, G. (ed.) 2001. Handbook of Industrial Engineering, Technology and Operations Management, 3rd ed.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Zandin, K.B. (ed.). 2001. Maynard's Industrial Engineering Handbook, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
none.
References
[1] https:/ / www. iise. org/ BodyofKnowledge
911

Project Management
Systems Engineering and Project Management

Lead Author: Dick Fairley, Contributing Authors: Richard Turner, Alice Squires
The goal of project management is to plan and coordinate the work activities needed to deliver a satisfactory product,
service, or enterprise endeavor within the constraints of schedule, budget, resources, infrastructure, and available
staffing and technology. The purpose of this knowledge area (KA) is to acquaint systems engineers with the
elements of project management and to explain the relationships between systems engineering (SE) and project
management (PM).
Topics
theme. The KAs, in turn, are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
• The Nature of Project Management
• An Overview of the PMBOK® Guide
• Relationships between Systems Engineering and Project Management
• The Influence of Project Structure and Governance on Systems Engineering and Project Management
Relationships
• Portfolio Management
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
John Wiley & Sons.
Systems Engineering and Project Management 912
None.

The Nature of Project Management

Lead Author: Heidi Davidz, Contributing Authors: Richard Turner, Alice Squires
While A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) provides an overview of project
management for those seeking PMI certification, Fairley (2009) and Forsberg (2005) suggest another way to
characterize the important aspects of project management:
• Planning and Estimating
• Measuring and Controlling
• Leading and Directing
• Managing Risk
Introduction
Project managers and systems engineers are both concerned with management issues such as planning, measuring
and controlling, leading, directing, and managing risk. In the case of project managers, the project attributes to be
managed include project plans; estimates; schedule; budget; project structure; staffing; resources; infrastructure; and
risk factors. Product attributes managed by systems engineers include items such as requirements allocation and
flow-down; system architecture; structure of and interactions among technical teams; specialty engineering;
integration; verification; and validation.
The exact allocation of the SE and PM duties depend on many factors, such as customer and stakeholder
interactions, organizational structure of the parent organization, and relationships with affiliate contractors and
subcontractors. (See the article on The Influence of Project Structure and Governance on Systems Engineering and
Project Management Relationships in this KA.)
Planning and Estimating
Planning
Planning a project involves providing answers to the who, what, where, when, and why of every project:
• Who: Addresses staffing issues (competencies, numbers of staff, communication and coordination)
• What: Addresses the scope of activities
• Where: Addresses issues of locale (local, geographically distributed)
• When: Addresses scheduling issues
• Why: Addresses rationale for conducting a project
Guidance for developing project plans can be found in INCOSE (2012), NASA (2007), and ISO/IEC/IEEE Standard
16326:2009. It is often observed that communication and coordination among stakeholders during project planning
are equally as important as (and sometimes more important than) the documented plan that is produced.
In defense work, event-driven integrated master plans and time-driven integrated master schedules are planning
products. Chapter 11 of the Defense Acquisition Guidebook provides details (DAU 2010).
Estimating
Estimation is an important element of planning. An estimate is a projection from past to future, adjusted to account
for differences between past and future. Estimation techniques include analogy, rule of thumb, expert judgment, and
use of parametric models such as the PRICE model for hardware, COCOMO for software projects and COSYSMO
for systems projects (Stewart 1990; Boehm et al. 2000; Valerdi 2008).
Entities estimated include (but are not limited to) schedule, cost, performance, and risk.
Systems engineering contributes to project estimation efforts by ensuring that:
• the overall system life cycle is understood;
• dependencies on other systems and organizations are identified;
• the logical dependencies during development are identified; and
• resources and key skills are identified and planned.
Additionally, high-level system architecture and risk assessment provide the basis for both the work breakdown
structure and the organizational breakdown structure.
Measuring and Controlling

Measuring and controlling are the key elements of executing a project. Measurement includes collecting measures
for work products and work processes. For example, determining the level of coverage of requirements in a design
specification can be assessed through review, analysis, prototyping, and traceability. Effort and schedule expended
on the work processes can be measured and compared to estimates; earned value tracking can be used for this
purpose. Controlling is concerned with analyzing measurement data and implementing corrective actions when
actual status does not align with planned status.
Systems engineers may be responsible for managing all technical aspects of project execution, or they may serve as
staff support for the project manager or project management office. Organizational relationships between systems
engineers and project managers are presented in Team Capability. Other organizational considerations for the
relationships between systems engineering and project management are covered in the Enabling Systems
Engineering knowledge area.
Additional information on measurement and control of technical factors can be found in the Measurement and
Assessment and Control articles in Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management.
Leading and Directing

Leading and directing requires communication and coordination among all project stakeholders, both internal and
external. Systems engineers may be responsible for managing all technical aspects of project execution, or they may
serve as staff support for the project manager or project management office. Organizational relationships between
systems engineers and project managers are presented in the article Team Capability in Part 5. Other organizational
considerations for the relationships between systems engineering and project management are discussed in Part 5:
Enabling Systems Engineering.
Managing Risk
Risk management is concerned with identifying and mitigating potential problems before they become real
problems. Systems engineering projects are, by nature, high-risk endeavors because of the many unknowns and
uncertainties that are inherent in projects. Because new risk factors typically emerge during a project, ongoing
continuous risk management is an important activity for both systems engineers and project managers.
Potential and actual problems may exist within every aspect of a project. Systems engineers are typically concerned
with technical risk and project managers with programmatic risk. Sometimes, technical risk factors are identified and
confronted by systems engineers and programmatic risk factors are identified and confronted by project managers
without adequate communication between them. In these cases, appropriate tradeoffs among requirements, schedule,
budget, infrastructure, and technology may not be made, which creates additional risk for the successful outcome of
a project.
In the last ten years, there has been an increasing interest in opportunity management as the converse of risk
management. Hillson (2003), Olsson (2007), and Chapman and Ward (2003) provide highly cited introductions.
Additional information on risk management for systems engineering projects can be found in the Risk Management
article in Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management.
References
Works Cited
Boehm, B., C. Abts, A.W. Brown, S. Chulani, B.K. Clark, E. Horowitz, R. Madachy, D. Reifer, and B. Steece. 2000.
Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Chapman, C., and S. Ward. 2003. Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and Insights. Chichester, West
Sussex, England, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, and H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley
& Sons.
Hillson, D. 2003. Effective Opportunity Management for Projects: Exploiting Positive Risk. Boca Raton, FL, USA:
CRC Press.
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2009. ISO/IEC/IEEE 16326:2009(E). Systems and Software Engineering - Life Cycle Processes -
Project Management. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Administration.
Olsson, Rolf. 2007. "In search of opportunity management: Is the risk management process enough?" International
Journal of Project Management, 25 (8), 745–752, 2011.
Stewart, Rodney. 1990. Cost Estimating. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Valerdi, R. The Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model (COSYSMO): Quantifying the Costs of Systems
Engineering Effort. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
Primary References
PMI. 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). 5th ed. Newtown Square,
Blanchard, B. 2008. System Engineering Management. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, Harold. 2003. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, 8th ed.
Martin, J. 1997. Systems Engineering Guidebook: A Process for Developing Systems and Products. London, UK:
Taylor and Francis Group CRC-Press, LLC.

An Overview of the PMBOK® Guide

Lead Author: Richard Turner, Contributing Author: Alice Squires
The Guide to the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) is published and maintained by the
Project Management Institute (PMI). It is acknowledged as the authoritative documentation of good practices in
project management. It is also the basis for certification exams to qualify Project Management Professionals (PMPs).
Many organizations require PMP certification as a basic qualification for the role of project manager.
The PMBOK 6th edition and prior editions were organized in a process focus. The PMBOK 7th edition is radically
different from the 6th edition, shifting away from a process focus to a principles focus. The 7th edition emphasizes
the mindsets, behaviors, and actions of the project manager. The 7th edition is also about a third the length of the 6th
edition. This current SEBoK article references the 5th edition. An update is planned to reflect the 6th and 7th
editions in a future release of the SEBoK.
Overview
According to Section 1.3 of the PMBOK® Guide, project management is accomplished through the appropriate
application and integration of the 47 logically grouped project management processes, which are categorized into
five Process Groups (PMI 2013). The five Process Groups are:
1. Initiating Process Group
2. Planning Process Group
3. Executing Process Group
4. Monitoring and Controlling Process Group
5. Closing Process Group
Each of the 47 processes is specified by Inputs, Tools & Techniques, and Outputs. Data flow diagrams are used in
the PMBOK to illustrate the relationships between each process and the other processes in which each process
interacts. The processes are also grouped into ten Knowledge Areas. These Knowledge Areas are:
1. Project Integration Management
2. Project Scope Management
3. Project Time Management
4. Project Cost Management

5. Project Quality Management
6. Project Human Resources Management
7. Project Communications Management
8. Project Risk Management
9. Project Procurement Management
10. Project Stakeholder Management
The five process groups are discussed in more detail in the following section.
Initiating Process Group

Activities performed in the Initiating process group include: obtaining authorization to start a project; defining the
high-level scope of the project; developing and obtaining approval for the project charter; performing key
stakeholder analysis; and identifying and documenting high-level risks, assumptions, and constraints. The Initiating
process group contains two processes: develop the project charter and identify stakeholders.
Planning Process Group

The Planning process group consists of 24 processes, including: assessing detailed project requirements, constraints,
and assumptions with stakeholders; developing the project management plan; creating the work breakdown structure;
developing a project schedule; determining a project budget; and planning for quality management, human resource
management, communication management, change and risk management, procurement management, and
stakeholder management. The integrated project management plan is presented to key stakeholders.
Executing Process Group

The Executing process group includes eight processes that involve performing the work necessary to achieve the
stated objectives of the project. Activities include: obtaining and managing project resources; executing the tasks
defined in the project plan; implementing approved changes according to the change management plan; performing
quality assurance; acquiring, developing, and managing the project team; managing communications; conducting
procurements; and managing stakeholder engagement.
Monitoring and Controlling Process Group

The Monitoring and Controlling process group is comprised of 11 processes that include: validate and control
scope; control schedule; control cost; control quality; control communications; control risks; control procurements;
and control stakeholder engagement. Activities include: measuring project performance and using appropriate tools
and techniques; managing changes to the project scope, schedule, and costs; ensuring that project deliverables
conform to quality standards; updating the risk register and risk response plan; assessing corrective actions on the
issues register; and communicating project status to stakeholders.
Closing Process Group

The Closing process group involves two processes: closing project or phase and closing procurements. Closing the
project or phase involves finalizing all project activities, archiving documents, obtaining acceptance for deliverables,
and communicating project closure. Other activities include: transferring ownership of deliverables; obtaining
financial, legal, and administrative closure; distributing the final project report; collating lessons learned; archiving
project documents and materials; and measuring customer satisfaction.
The scope of project management, as specified in the PMBOK Guide, encompasses the total set of management
concerns that contribute to successful project outcomes.
References
Works Cited
Primary References
Blanchard, B. 2008. System Engineering Management. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Martin, J. 1997. Systems Engineering Guidebook: A Process for Developing Systems and Products. London, UK:
Taylor and Francis Group CRC-Press, LLC.

Relationships between Systems Engineering and

Project Management
Lead Author: Richard Turner, Contributing Author: Alice Squires
This topic discusses the relationship between systems engineering (SE) and project management (PM). As with
software engineering, there is a great deal of overlap. Depending on the environment and organization, the two
disciplines can be disjoint, partially intersecting, or one can be seen as a subset of the other. While there is no
standard relationship, the project manager and the systems engineer encompass the technical and managerial
leadership of a project between them, which requires the enterprise of each project manager and system engineer to
work out the particular details for their own context.
Overlap
There is a great deal of significant overlap between the scope of systems engineering, as described here (in the
SEBoK), CMMI (2011), and other resources and the scope of project management, as described in the PMBOK®
Guide (PMI 2013), CMMI (2011), and other resources as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Overlap of PM and SE. (SEBoK Original)
These sources describe the importance of understanding the scope of the work at hand, how to plan for critical
activities, how to manage efforts while reducing risk, and how to successfully deliver value to a customer. The
systems engineer working on a project will plan, monitor, confront risk, and deliver the technical aspects of the
project, while the project manager is concerned with the same kinds of activities for the overall project. Because of
these shared concerns, at times there may be confusion and tension between the roles of the project manager and the
systems engineer on a given project. As shown in Figure 2, on some projects there is no overlap in responsibility. On
other projects, there may be shared responsibilities for planning and managing activities. In some cases, particularly
for smaller projects, the project manager may also be the lead technical member of the team performing both roles of
project manager and systems engineer.
Figure 2. Overlap of Project Roles. (SEBoK Original)

Defining Roles and Responsibilities

Regardless of how the roles are divided up on a given project, the best way to reduce confusion is to explicitly
describe the roles and responsibilities of the project manager and the systems engineer, as well as other key team
members. The Project Management Plan (PMP) and the Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) are key
documents used to define the processes and methodologies the project will employ to build and deliver a product or
service.
The PMP is the master planning document for the project. It describes all activities, including technical activities, to
be integrated and controlled during the life of the program. The SEMP is the master planning document for the
systems engineering technical elements. It defines SE processes and methodologies used on the project and the
relationship of SE activities to other project activities. The SEMP must be consistent with and evolve in concert with
the PMP. In addition, some customers have technical management plans and expectations that the project’s SEMP
integrate with customer plans and activities. In the U.S. Department of Defense, most government project teams
have a systems engineering plan (SEP) with an expectation that the contractor’s SEMP will integrate and remain
consistent with customer technical activities. In cases where the project is developing a component of a larger
system, the component project’s SEMP will need to integrate with the overall project’s SEMP.
Given the importance of planning and managing the technical aspects of the project, an effective systems engineer
will need to have a strong foundation in management skills and prior experience, as well as possess strong technical
depth. From developing and defending basis of estimates, planning and monitoring technical activities, identifying
and mitigating technical risk, and identifying and including relevant stakeholders during the life of the project, the
systems engineer becomes a key member of the project’s management and leadership team. Additional information
on Systems Engineering Management and Stakeholder Needs and Requirements can be found in Part 3: Systems
Engineering and Management.
Effective communication between the project manager and the system engineer is essential for mission
accomplishment. This communication needs to be established early and occur frequently.
Resource reallocation, schedule changes, product/system changes and impacts, risk changes: all these and more need
to be quickly and clearly discussed between the PM and SE.
References
Works Cited
CMMI. 2011. CMMI for Development: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Old Tappan,
NJ, USA: Pearson Education.
Primary References
Chrissis, M.B, M. Konrad, S. Shrum. 2011. CMMI for Development: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product
Improvement, 3rd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Professional.
NASA. 2007. Systems Engineering Handbook, Revision 1. Washington, DC, USA: National Aeronautics and Space

The Influence of Project Structure and

Governance on Systems Engineering and Project
Management Relationships
Lead Author: Alice Squires
This article reviews various project structures that impact or provide governance to the project and that require key
involvement from the program manager and the systems engineer. These structures include: the structure of the
organization itself (functional, project, matrix, and specialized teams, such as Integrated Product Teams (IPTs),
Change Control Boards (CCBs), and Engineering Review Boards (ERBs). This article also addresses the influence of
schedule-driven versus requirements-driven projects on these structures.
Relationships between Systems Engineering and Project Management are covered in a related article.
An Overview of Project Structures

Project management and systems engineering governance are dependent on the organization's structure. For some
projects, systems engineering is subordinated to project management and in other cases, project management
provides support to systems engineering. These alternatives are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of the Organizing the
Team section in Team Capability.
A project exists within the structural model of an organization. Projects are one-time, transient events that are
initiated to accomplish a specific purpose and are terminated when the project objectives are achieved. Sometimes,
on small projects, the same person accomplishes the work activities of both project management and systems
engineering. Because the natures of the work activities are significantly different, it is sometimes more effective to
have two persons performing project management and systems engineering, each on a part-time basis. On larger
projects there are typically too many tasks to be accomplished for one person to accomplish all of the necessary
work. Very large projects may have project management and systems engineering offices with a designated project
manager and a designated lead systems engineer.
Projects are typically organized in one of three ways: (1) by functional structure, (2) by project structure, and (3) by
a matrix structure (see Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy for a fourth structure and related discussion). In
a function-structured organization, workers are grouped by the functions they perform. The systems engineering
functions can be: (1) distributed among some of the functional organizations, (2) centralized within one organization
The Influence of Project Structure and Governance on Systems Engineering and Project Management Relationships 921
or (3) a hybrid, with some of the functions being distributed to the projects, some centralized and some distributed to
functional organization. The following figure provides an organizational structure continuum and illustrates levels of
governance among the functional organizations and the project.
• In a functional-structured organization, the project manager is a coordinator and typically has only limited control
over the systems engineering functions. In this type of organization, the functional manager typically controls the
project budget and has authority over the project resources. However, the organization may or may not have a
functional unit for systems engineering. In the case where there is a functional unit for systems engineering,
systems engineers are assigned across existing projects. Trades can be made among their projects to move the
priority of a specific systems engineering project ahead of other projects; thus reducing the nominal schedule for
that selected project. However, in the case where there is not a functional unit for systems engineering, the project
manager may have to find alternate sources of staffing for systems engineering – for example, hiring systems
engineering talent or consultants, promoting or expanding the responsibilities of a current team member, etc.
• In a project-structured organization, the project manager has full authority and responsibility for managing the
budget and resources to meet the schedule requirements. The systems engineer is subject to the direction of the
project manager. The project manager may work with human resources or a personnel manager or may go outside
the organization to staff the project.
• Matrix-structured organization can have the advantages of both the functional and project structures. For a
schedule driven project, function specialists are assigned to projects as needed to work for the project manager to
apply their expertise on the project. Once they are no longer needed, they are returned to their functional groups
(e.g. home office). In a weak matrix, the functional managers have authority to assign workers to projects and
project managers must accept the workers assigned to them. In a strong matrix, the project manager controls the
project budget and can reject workers from functional groups and hire outside workers if functional groups do not
have sufficient available and trained workers.
Figure 1. The Organizational Continuum (2). (SEBoK Original and Adapted from Fairley 2009). Reprinted with permission of the IEEE Computer
Society. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
In all cases, it is essential that the organizational and governance relationships be clarified and communicated to all
project stakeholders and that the project manager and systems engineer work together in a collegial manner.
The Project Management Office (PMO) provides centralized control for a set of projects. The PMO is focused on
meeting the business objectives leveraging a set of projects, while the project managers are focused on meeting the
objectives of those projects that fall under their purview. PMOs typically manage shared resources and coordinate
communication across the projects, provide oversight and manage interdependencies, and drive project-related
policies, standards, and processes. The PMO may also provide training and monitor compliance (PMI 2013).
Schedule-Driven versus Requirements-Driven Influences on Structure and

Governance
This article addresses the influences on governance relationships between the project manager and the systems
engineer. One factor that establishes this relationship is whether a project is schedule-driven or requirements-driven.
In general, a project manager is responsible for delivering an acceptable product/service on the specified delivery
date and within the constraints of the specified schedule, budget, resources, and technology.
The systems engineer is responsible for collecting and defining the operational requirements, specifying the systems
requirements, developing the system design, coordinating component development teams, integrating the system
components as they become available, verifying that the system to be delivered is correct, complete and consistent to
its technical specification, and validating the operation of the system in its intended environment.
From a governance perspective, the project manager is often thought of as being a movie producer who is
responsible for balancing the schedule, budget, and resource constraints to meet customer satisfaction. The systems
engineer is responsible for product content; ergo, the systems engineer is analogous to a movie director.
Organizational structures, discussed previously, provide the project manager and systems engineer with different
levels of governance authority. In addition, schedule and requirements constraints can influence governance
relationships. A schedule-driven project is one for which meeting the project schedule is more important than
satisfying all of the project requirements; in these cases lower priority requirements may not be implemented in order
to meet the schedule.
Classic examples of these types of projects are:
• a project that has an external customer with a contractual delivery date and an escalating late delivery penalty, and
• a project for which delivery of the system must meet a major milestone (e.g. a project for an announced product
release of a cell phone that is driven by market considerations).
For schedule-driven projects, the project manager is responsible for planning and coordinating the work activities
and resources for the project so that the team can accomplish the work in a coordinated manner to meet the schedule.
The systems engineer works with the project manager to determine the technical approach that will meet the
schedule. An Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) is often used to coordinate the project.
A requirements-driven project is one for which satisfaction of the requirements is more important than the schedule
constraint. Classic examples of these types of projects are:
1. exploratory development of a new system that is needed to mitigate a potential threat (e.g. military research
project) and
2. projects that must conform to government regulations in order for the delivered system to be safely operated (e.g.,
aviation and medical device regulations).
An Integrated Master Plan is often used to coordinate event-driven projects.
To satisfy the product requirements, the systems engineer is responsible for making technical decisions and making
the appropriate technical trades. When the trade space includes cost, schedule, or resources, the systems engineer
interacts with the project manager who is responsible for providing the resources and facilities needed to implement
a system that satisfies the technical requirements.
Schedule-driven projects are more likely to have a management structure in which the project manager plays the
central role, as depicted in Figure 1 of the Organizing the Team section in Team Capability. Requirement-driven
projects are more likely to have a management structure in which the systems engineer plays the central role, as
depicted in Figure 2 of the Organizing the Team section in Team Capability.

Along with the Project Management Plan and the Systems Engineering Management Plan, IMP/IMS are critical to
this process.
Related Structures
Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), Change Control Boards (CCBs), and Engineering Review Boards (ERBs) are
primary examples of project structures that play a significant role in project governance and require coordination
between the project manager, systems engineer and other members of the team.
Integrated Product Team

The Integrated Product Team (IPT) ensures open communication flow between the government and industry
representatives as well as between the various product groups (see Good Practices in Planning). There is typically a
top level IPT, sometimes referred to as the Systems Engineering and Integration Team (SEIT) (see Systems
Engineering Organizational Strategy), that oversees the lower level IPTs. The SEIT can be led by either the project
manager for a specific project or by the systems engineering functional manager or functional lead across many
projects. Each IPT consists of representatives from the appropriate management and technical teams that need to
collaborate on systems engineering, project management, and other activities to create a high-quality product. These
representatives meet regularly to ensure that the technical requirements are understood and properly implemented in
the design. Also see Team Capability for more information.
Change Control Board

An effective systems engineering approach includes a disciplined process for change control as part of the larger
goal of configuration management. The primary objective of configuration management is to track changes to
project artifacts that include software, hardware, plans, requirements, designs, tests, and documentation.
Alternatively, a Change Control Board (CCB) with representatives from appropriate areas of the project is set up to
effectively analyze, control and manage changes being proposed to the project. The CCB typically receives an
Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) from design/development, production, or operations/support and initially
reviews the change for feasibility. The ECP may also be an output of the Engineering Review Board (ERB) (see next
section). If determined feasible, the CCB ensures there is an acceptable change implementation plan and proper
modification and installation procedures to support production and operations.
There may be multiple CCBs in a large project. CCBs may be comprised of members from both the customer and the
supplier. As with the IPTs, there can be multiple levels of CCB starting with a top level CCB with CCBs also
existing at the subsystem levels. A technical lead typically chairs the CCB; however, the board includes
representation from project management since the CCB decisions will have an impact on schedule, budget, and
resources.
See Figure 2 under Configuration Management for a flow of the change control process adapted from Blanchard and
Fabrycky (2011). See also Capability Updates, Upgrades, and Modernization, and topics included under Enabling
Teams. See also the UK West Coast Modernization Project which provides an example where change control was an
important success factor.
Engineering Review Board

Another example of a board that requires collaboration between technical and management is the Engineering
Review Board (ERB). Examples of ERBs include the Management Safety Review Board (MSRB) (see Safety
Engineering). Responsibilities of the ERB may include technical impact analysis of pending change requests (like
the CCB), adjudication of results of engineering trade studies, and review of changes to the project baseline. In some
cases, the ERB may be the management review board and the CCB may be the technical review board. Alternatively,
in a requirement driven organization the ERB may have more influence while in a schedule driven organization the
CCB may have more impact.
References
Works Cited
Blanchard, B.S., and W. J. Fabrycky. 2011. Systems Engineering and Analysis. 5th ed. Prentice-Hall International
Fairley, R.E. 2009. Managing and Leading Software Projects. Hoboken, NJ, USA: IEEE Computer Society, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. Publication. ISBN: 978-0-470-29455-0.
Primary References
Forsberg, K., H. Mooz, and H. Cotterman. 2005. Visualizing Project Management. 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA:
John Wiley & Sons.
None.

Procurement and Acquisition

Lead Author: Dick Fairley, Contributing Author: Alice Squires
Procurement is the act of buying goods and services. Acquisition covers the conceptualization, initiation, design,
development, testing, contracting, production, deployment, logistics support, modification, and disposal of weapons
and other systems, as well as supplies or services (including construction) to satisfy organizational needs intended
for use in, or in support of, defined missions (DAU 2010; DoD 2001).
Acquisition covers a much broader range of topics than procurement. Acquisition spans the whole life cycle of
acquired systems. The procurement of appropriate systems engineering (SE) acquisition activities and levels of SE
support is critical for an organization to meet the challenge of developing and maintaining complex systems.
The Guide for Integrating Systems Engineering into DoD Acquisition Contracts addresses how systems engineering
activities are integrated into the various elements of acquisition and procurement (DoD 2006a).
Acquisition Process Model

Multiple acquisition process models exist. An acquisition process for major systems in industry and defense is shown
in Figure 1. The process of acquisition is defined by a series of phases during which technology is defined and
matured into viable concepts. These concepts are subsequently developed and readied for production, after which the
systems produced are supported in the field.
Acquisition planning is the process of identifying and describing needs, capabilities, and requirements, as well as
determining the best method for meeting those requirements (e.g., program acquisition strategy). This process
includes procurement; thus, procurement is directly linked to the acquisition process model. The process model
present in Figure 1 allows a given acquisition to enter the process at any of the development phases.
For example, a system using unproven technology would enter at the beginning stages of the process and would
proceed through a lengthy period of technology maturation. On the other hand, a system based on mature and proven
technologies might enter directly into engineering development or sometimes even production.
Figure 1. An Acquisition Process Model (DAU 2010). Released by Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S.
Systems Engineering Role in the Acquisition Process

The procurement of complex systems usually requires a close relationship between the offeror and supplier SE teams
due to the breadth and depth of SE activities. SE is an overarching process that the program team applies in order to
transition from a stated capability need to an affordable, operationally effective, and suitable system.
SE is important to every phase of the acquisition process. SE encompasses the application of SE processes across the
acquisition life cycle and is intended to be an integrating mechanism for balanced solutions addressing capability
needs, design considerations, and constraints. It is also intended to address limitations imposed by technology,
budget, and schedule.
SE is an interdisciplinary approach; that is, it is a structured, disciplined, and documented technical effort to
simultaneously design and develop system products and processes to satisfy the needs of the customer. Regardless of
the scope and type of program, or at what point it enters the program acquisition life cycle, the technical approach to
the program needs to be integrated with the acquisition strategy to obtain the best program solution.
Acquisition and procurement in the commercial sector have many characteristics in common with their counterparts
in the realm of government contracting, although the processes in the commercial world are usually accomplished
with fewer rigors than occur between government and contractor interactions. Offshore outsourcing is commonly
practiced in the commercial software arena with the goal of reducing the cost of labor. Commercial organizations
sometimes subcontract with other commercial organizations to provide missing expertise and to balance the ebb and
flow of staffing needs.
In some cases, relations between the contracting organization and the subcontractor are strained because of the
contracting organization’s desire to protect its intellectual property and development practices from potential
exposure to the subcontractor. Commercial organizations often have lists of approved vendors that are used to
expedite the procurement of needed equipment, products, and services. In these situations, commercial organizations
have processes to evaluate and approve vendors in ways that are analogous to the qualification of government
contractors. Many commercial organizations apply SE principles and procedures even though they may not identify
the personnel and job functions as “systems engineers” or “systems engineering.”
Importance of the Acquisition Strategy in the Procurement Process

The acquisition strategy is usually developed during the front end of the acquisition life cycle. (For an example of
this, see the Technology Development Phase in Figure 1.) The acquisition strategy provides the integrated strategy
for all aspects of the acquisition program throughout the program life cycle.
In essence, the acquisition strategy is a high-level business and technical management approach designed to achieve
program objectives within specified resource constraints. It acts as the framework for planning, organizing, staffing,
controlling, and leading a program, as well as for establishing the appropriate contract mechanisms. It provides a
master schedule for research, development, testing, production, fielding, and other SE related activities essential for
program success, as well as for formulating functional strategies and plans.
The offeror’s program team, including systems engineering, is responsible for developing and documenting the
acquisition strategy, which conveys the program objectives, direction, and means of control based on the integration
of strategic, technical, and resource concerns. A primary goal of the acquisition strategy is the development of a plan
that will minimize the time and cost of satisfying an identified, validated need while remaining consistent with
common sense and sound business practices. While the contract officer (CO) is responsible for all contracting
aspects, including determining which type of contract is most appropriate, and following the requirements of existing
regulations, directives, instructions, and policy memos of an organization, the program manager (PM) works with the
CO to develop the best contract/procurement strategy and contract types.
Relating Acquisition to Request for Proposal and Technical Attributes

There are several formats for requesting proposals from offerors for building complex systems. Figure 2 relates
acquisition program elements to a representative request for proposal (RFP) topical outline and key program
technical attributes that have been used by the Department of Defense. In general, programs have a better chance of
success when both the offeror and supplier understand the technical nature of the program and the need for the
associated SE activities.
The offeror and supplier need to clearly communicate the technical aspect of the program throughout the
procurement process. The offeror’s RFP and the associated supplier proposal represent one of the formal
communications paths. A partial list of key program technical attributes is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Relating Acquisition to Request for Proposal and Technical Attributes. (DoD 2006a). Released by the U.S. Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
Contract-Related Activities and the Offeror’s Systems Engineering and

Project Management Roles
A clear understanding of the technical requirements is enhanced via the development of a Systems Engineering Plan
(SEP). The SEP documents the systems engineering strategy for a project or program and acts as the blueprint for the
conduct, management, and control of the technical aspects of the acquisition program (DoD 2011). The SEP
documents the SE structure and addresses government and contractor boundaries. It summarizes the program’s
selected acquisition strategy and identifies and links to program risks. It also describes how the contractor's, and
sometimes the subcontractor's and suppliers', technical efforts are to be managed.
Once the technical requirements are understood, a contract may be developed and followed by the solicitation of
suppliers. The offeror's PM, chief or lead systems engineer, and CO must work together to translate the program’s
acquisition strategy and associated technical approach (usually defined in a SEP) into a cohesive, executable
contract(s).
Table 1 shows some key contracting-related tasks with indicators of the roles of the PM and LSE.
Table 1. Offeror’s Systems Engineering and Program Management Roles (DoD 2006).
Released by the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Typical Contract-Related Activities Systems Engineer and Project Manager Roles
1. Identify overall procurement requirements and associated budget. 1. Lead systems engineer (LSE) provides program technical requirements.
Describe the offer’s needs and any constraints on the procurement. PM provides any programmatic related requirements.
2. Identify technical actions required to successfully complete 2. LSE defines the technical strategy/approach and required technical
technical and procurement milestones. The program’s SEP is the key efforts. This should be consistent with the program’s Acquisition Strategy.
source for capturing this technical planning.
3. Document market research results and identify potential industry 3. PM and LSE identify programmatic and technical information needed
sources. and assist in evaluating the results.
4. Prepare a Purchase Request, including product descriptions; 4. PM and LSE ensure the specific programmatic and technical needs are
priorities, allocations and allotments; architecture; defined clearly (e.g., commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products).
government-furnished property or equipment (or
Government-Off-The-Shelf (GOTS); government-furnished
information; information assurance and security considerations; and
required delivery schedules.
5. Identify acquisition streamlining approach and requirements, 5. The procurement team work together, but the CO has the prime
budgeting and funding, management information requirements, responsibility. The PM is the owner of the program Acquisition Strategy.
environmental considerations, offeror’s expected skill sets, and The LSE develops and reviews (and the PM approves) the technical
milestones. These should be addressed in the Acquisition Strategy. strategy.
6. Plan the requirements for the contract Statement of Objectives 6. LSE is responsible for the development of the technical aspects of the
(SOO) / Statement of Work (SOW) / specification, project technical SOO/SOW.
reviews, acceptance requirements, and schedule.
7. Plan and conduct Industry Days as appropriate. 7. PM and LSE support the CO in planning the meeting agenda to ensure
technical needs are discussed.
8. Establish contract cost, schedule, and performance reporting 8. LSE provides technical resource estimates. LSE supports development
requirements. Determine an incentive strategy and appropriate of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) based on preliminary system
mechanism (e.g., Award Fee Plan and criteria). specifications, determines event-driven criteria for key technical reviews,
and determines what technical artifacts are baselined. The PM and LSE
advise the CO in developing the metrics/criteria for an incentive
mechanism.
9. Identify data requirements. 9. LSE identifies all technical Contractor Data Requirements List (CDRL)
and technical performance expectations.
10. Establish warranty requirements, if applicable. 10. LSE works with the CO to determine cost-effective warranty
requirements.
11. Prepare a Source Selection Plan (SSP) and RFP (for competitive 11. PM and LSE provide input to the SSP per the SOO/SOW.
contracts).
12. Conduct source selection and award the contract to the successful 12. PM and LSE participate on evaluation teams.
offeror.
Offeror and Supplier Interactions

There should be an environment of open communication prior to the formal source selection process. This ensures
that the supplier understands the offeror’s requirements and that the offeror understands the supplier's capabilities
and limitations, as well as enhancing the supplier's involvement in the development of a program acquisition
strategy. During the pre-solicitation phase, the offeror develops the solicitation and may ask suppliers to provide
important insights into the technical challenges, program technical approach, and key business motivations.
For example, potential bidders could be asked for their assessment of a proposed system's performance based on the
maturity level of new and existing technologies.
Contracts and Subcontracts

Typical types of contracts include the following:
• Fixed Price: In a fixed price contract the offeror proposes a single price for all products and services to
implement the project. This single price is sometimes referred to as low bid or lump sum. A fixed price contract
transfers the project risks to the supplier. When there is a cost overrun, the supplier absorbs it. If the supplier
performs better than planned, their profit is higher. Since all risks are absorbed by the supplier, a fixed price bid
may be higher to reflect this.
• Cost-reimbursement [Cost plus]: In a cost-reimbursement contract the offeror provides a fixed fee, but also
reimburses the contractor for labor, material, overhead, and administration costs. Cost-reimbursement type
contracts are used when there is a high level of project risk and uncertainty. With this type of contract, the risks
reside primarily with the offeror. The supplier gets reimbursed for all of its costs. Additional costs that arise due
to changes or rework are covered by the offeror. This type of contract is often recommended for the system
definition of hardware and software development when there is a risk of stakeholder changes to the system.
• Subcontracts: A subcontractor performs work for another company as part of a larger project. A subcontractor is
hired by a general contractor (also known as a prime or main contractor) to perform a specific set of tasks as part
of the overall project. The incentive to hire subcontractors is either to reduce costs or to mitigate project risks. The
systems engineering team is involved in establishing the technical contract requirements, technical selection
criteria, acceptance requirements, and the technical monitoring and control processes.
• Outsource contracts: Outsourced contracts are used to obtain goods or services by contracting with an outside
supplier. Outsourcing usually involves contracting a business function, such as software design and code
development, to an external provider.
• Exclusively Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS): Exclusively COTS contracts are completely satisfied with
commercial solutions that require no modification for use. COTS solutions are used in the environment without
modifying the COTS system. They are integrated into an existing user's platform or integrated into an existing
operational environment. The systems engineering team is involved in establishing the technical contract
requirements, technical acceptance, and technical selection criteria.
• Integrated COTS: Integrated COTS contracts use commercially available products and integrate them into
existing user platforms or operational environments. In some cases, integrated COTS solutions modify the
system's solution. The cost of integrating the commercial COTS product into the operational environment can
exceed the cost of the COTS product itself. As a result, the systems engineering team is usually involved in
establishing the technical outsourcing contract requirements, technical selection criteria, technical monitoring and
control processes, and technical acceptance and integration processes.
• COTS Modification: COTS modification requires the most time and cost because of the additional work needed
to modify the COTS product and integrate it into the system. Depending on how complex and critical the need is,
the systems engineering team is usually involved in establishing the technical outsource contract requirements,
technical selection criteria, technical monitoring and control processes, and technical acceptance requirements.
• IT services: IT services provide capabilities that can enable an enterprise, application, or Web service solution. IT
services can be provided by an outsourced service provider. In many cases, the user interface for these Web
services is as simple as a Web browser. Depending on how complex and critical the needs are, the systems
engineering team can be involved in establishing the technical outsourcing contract requirements, technical
selection criteria, and technical acceptance process.
References
Works Cited
(DAU)/US Department of Defense (DoD).
DoD. 2011. Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Outline. Washington, DC, USA: Office of the Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Transportation, and Logistics (AT&L), US Department of Defense (DoD).
DoD. 2006. Guide for Integrating Systems Engineering into DoD Acquisition Contracts. Washington, DC, USA:
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Transportation, and Logistics (AT&L), US Department of
Defense (DoD).
DoD. 2001. Systems Engineering Fundamentals. Washington, DC, USA: Defense Acquisition University Press/US
Department of Defense.
Primary References
(DAU)/US Department of Defense (DoD).
DoD. 2011. Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Outline. Washington, DC, USA: Office of the Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Transportation, and Logistics (AT&L), US Department of Defense (DoD).
DoD. 2006. Guide for Integrating Systems Engineering into DoD Acquisition Contracts. Washington, DC, USA:
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Transportation, and Logistics (AT&L), US Department of
Defense (DoD).
MITRE. 2011. "Acquisition Systems Engineering." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed March 9, 2012. Available:
http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/acquisition_systems_engineering/.

Portfolio Management
Lead Authors: Eric Specking, Gregory S. Parnell, Ed Pohl
Systems engineers need to be aware of and understand the role of systems engineering in project, program, and
portfolio management (PfM) processes to achieve maximum stakeholder value. In general, program and project
management practices help ensure that organizations execute programs and projects the “right” way. Portfolio
management can help to ensure they select the “right” programs and projects, and systems engineering ensures they
use the “right” systems thinking (Specking et al. 2020). Not using portfolio management practices increases
organizational risk and could decrease stakeholder value.
This article provides:
• a description of the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 activities and tasks with regards to portfolio management;
• a description of the Project Management Institute's (PMI’s) portfolio life cycle process based on PMI’s Guide to
the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMI 2017a);
• the connection of the PMI’s portfolio life cycle process to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288;
• a reference to the principles of portfolio management from the PfM Standard;
• a realignment of the SE Handbook’s common approaches/tips with the PfM Standard’s six domains;
• a discussion to better clarify systems engineering’s relationship to portfolio management, as well as systems
engineering’s relationship to other topics, such as project management and program management; and
• a description of the systems engineer's role to support portfolio managers that explicitly states how a systems
engineer (a) helps evaluate the value of projects to authorize, continue, or terminate enterprise projects and (b)
manages their portfolio of systems engineering activities to support portfolio managers and to support enterprise
processes, products, and services.
Portfolio Management Overview

ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (ISO/IEC/IEEE 2015) establishes portfolio management’s importance to systems engineering
by including it as an organizational project-enabling process. This organizational project-enabling process uses an
organization’s strategic plan, portfolio direction and constraints, supply strategy, and project status report as inputs,
while a portfolio management plan, organization infrastructure needs, project direction, project portfolio,
organization lessons learned, portfolio management report, and portfolio management records are outputs (INCOSE
2015). Portfolio management uses these inputs to perform processes that help enterprises define and authorize
projects; evaluate the portfolio of projects and programs; and terminate projects to develop the portfolio management
outputs. These activities take place throughout the portfolio life cycle, which includes optimization, initiation,
planning, and execution (PMI 2017b).
Portfolio Management Process Implementation

The proper implementation of portfolio management processes results in seven major portfolio management
outcomes: 1) qualification and prioritization of business venture opportunities, investments, or necessities; 2)
identification of projects; 3) allocation of project resources and budgets; 4) description of project management
responsibilities, accountability, and authorities; 5) sustainment of project meeting agreement and stakeholder
requirements; 6) redirection or termination of unsatisfactory projects; and 7) closure of successfully completed
projects (ISO/IEC/IEEE, 2015). A project should continue if it contributes to organizational strategy; makes progress
on achieving its pre-established goals; obeys organizational project directives; is executed according to its
pre-approved plan; and continues to add value to the organization with acceptable returns (INCOSE 2015).
Organizations can increase portfolio value by successfully implementing portfolio management processes through
six performance management domains throughout the portfolio life cycle (PMI 2017b). These domains, described in
Table 1, include portfolio strategic management, portfolio governance, portfolio capacity and capability
management, portfolio stakeholder engagement, portfolio value management, and portfolio risk management.
Table 1. Performance Management Domain Descriptions for Portfolio Management

(Specking et al. 2020)
Domain Description
Portfolio Strategic Align portfolio components to one or more strategic objectives and monitor impact
Management
Portfolio Governance “Through open and transparent governance, including processes for categorizing, prioritizing, selecting, and approving
portfolio components, key stakeholders are more likely to accept the decisions and agree with the process, even when
they may not fully endorse the decisions made” (PMI 2017b).
Portfolio Capacity and “The selection of portfolio components and the roadmap for their implementation is balanced against the organization’s
Capability Management current capacity and capability with the potential of bringing in additional resources” (PMI 2017b).
Portfolio Stakeholder “Key portfolio stakeholders require active expectation management” (PMI 2017b).
Engagement
Portfolio Value Use the organizational strategy to enable investment in a portfolio with the expectation of a pre-determined return
Management
Portfolio Risk Evaluate risk (positive/opportunities, negative/threats) and consider how those risks might impact accomplishing the
Management portfolio strategic plan and objectives
These domains use some or all of the seven PMI fundamental principles for portfolio management (PMI 2017b). The
seven PMI fundamental principles for portfolio management include:
• Strive to achieve excellence in strategic execution;
• Enhance transparency, responsibility, accountability, sustainability, and fairness;
• Balance portfolio value against overall risks;
• Ensure that investments in portfolio components are aligned with the organization’s strategy;
• Obtain and maintain the sponsorship and engagement of senior management and key stakeholders;
• Exercise active and decisive leadership for the optimization of resource utilization;
• Foster a culture that embraces change and risk; and
• Navigate complexity to enable successful outcomes.
Portfolio Management Process Best Practices

INCOSE's Systems Engineering Handbook (INCOSE 2015) provides several best practices for performing portfolio
management processes. These best practices connect to one or more of the six performance management domains
seen in Table 2.
Table 2. SE Handbook Best Practices for Portfolio Management (Modified from (Specking
et al. 2020))
Performance Management Key Word for Description of Best Practices
Domain for Portfolio Best Practice
Management
• Portfolio Strategic Right Stakeholders Include relevant stakeholders when developing the organization’s business area plan to
Management enable the organization to determine present and future strategic objectives for focusing
• Portfolio Strategic resources
Engagement
• Portfolio Value Management
• Portfolio Value Management Measurable Prioritize opportunities based upon measurable criteria that contains a stated threshold of
• Portfolio Governance Criteria acceptable performance
• Portfolio Value Management Progress Base expected project outcomes on defined, measurable criteria with specific investment
• Portfolio Governance Assessment assessment information to enable an impartial progress assessment
• Portfolio Capacity and
Capability Management
• Portfolio Governance Coordinate Use some type of coordination organization, such as a program office, to manage the
Interactions interactions among active projects
• Portfolio Governance Consider Products Use a product line approach for scenarios where multiple customers need the same/similar
and Systems system but customize the system as necessary
• Portfolio Risk Management Assess Risk Assess risk during current project evaluation and cancel/suspend projects with risks that
outweigh the investment
• Portfolio Strategic Align with Perform opportunity assessments of ongoing projects and avoid opportunities that contain
Management Strategy unacceptable levels of risks, resource demands, or uncertainties or does not aligned with
• Portfolio Capacity and organization capabilities, strategic goals, or strategic objectives
Capability Management
• Portfolio Value Management Allocate Allocate resources based upon project requirements
• Portfolio Governance Resources
• Portfolio Governance Effective Use effective governance processes, which support investment decision making and project
Governance management communications
Relationships Between Systems Engineering, Portfolio Management, and

Project Management
It is often difficult for systems engineers to understand the relationships between systems engineering, portfolio
management, and project management because of their overlapping processes and the use of similar tools. Figure 1
shows the role of project management, systems engineering, and portfolio management for developing and
improving an enterprise architecture to provide products or services to many stakeholders. Project and program
managers and systems engineers all interact with stakeholders and the enterprise architecture, which consists of
products or services and the systems that make them. Systems engineers use the enterprise architecture to develop
user and system functional hierarchies, which enable capability development. These capabilities help systems
engineers evaluate the enterprise’s current and future states. From this evaluation, the Project Management Office
(portfolio managers) can develop a potential list of projects or programs to fund. Portfolio managers use best
practices in decision analysis (Parnell et al. 2013) to develop a project prioritization value model (e.g. single or
multiple objective decision analysis model). Portfolio managers then use optimization techniques to determine which
projects or programs to fund based upon the prioritization value model. Project managers then execute the funded
projects to ensure that the projects stay on schedule and within budget constraints while meeting desired
performance metrics. Information impacting systems engineering documentation discovered from the funded
projects updates the functional hierarchies and system architecture. Throughout the project, portfolio managers
receive updates from project managers on project progress. Portfolio managers use progress information to evaluate
the project for continuation or termination. If the project is terminated upon successful completion of the project, the
project’s outcomes update the enterprises’ architecture. Otherwise (i.e. terminated early or upon an unsuccessful
completion), portfolio managers update their list of potential projects and/or programs for reprioritization. This cycle
continues and evolves with time based upon the enterprise’s strategy.
Figure 1: Role of Systems Engineering, Project Management, and Portfolio Management in a DevOps Environment
In addition to helping systems engineers understand the roles of systems engineering, portfolio management, and
project management, Figure 1 provides insights into the relationships between the processes from an enterprise
DevOps environment perspective.
References
Works Cited
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, Walden,
David and Roedler, Garry and Forsberg, Kevin and Hamelin, Douglas and Shortell, Thomas (ed.), 4th ed, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Parnell G.S., T.A. Bresnic, S.N. Tani, E.R. Johnson. 2013. Handbook of Decision Analysis. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
PMI. 2017a. The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 6th Edition. Project Management Institute.
Available at: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok.
PMI. 2017b. The Standard for Portfolio Management. 3rd Edition. Project Management Institute. Available at:
https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/standard-for-portfolio-management.
Specking, E., G. Parnell, E. Pohl. 2020. “Comparing INCOSE and PMI portfolio management practices,” 30th
Annual INCOSE International Symposium, 2020.
Primary References
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, Walden,
David and Roedler, Garry and Forsberg, Kevin and Hamelin, Douglas and Shortell, Thomas (ed.), 4th ed, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015. Systems and Software Engineering – System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
PMI. 2017a. The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 6th Edition. Project Management Institute.
Available at: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok.
PMI. 2017b. The Standard for Portfolio Management. 3rd Edition. Project Management Institute. Available at:
https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/standard-for-portfolio-management.
None.

936

Software Engineering
Systems Engineering and Software Engineering

Lead Authors: Dick Fairley, Tom Hilburn, Contributing Authors: Ray Madachy, Alice Squires
Software is prominent in most modern systems architectures and is often the primary means for integrating complex
system components. Software engineering and systems engineering are not merely related disciplines; they are
intimately intertwined. (See Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines.) Good systems engineering is a key factor
in enabling good software engineering.
The SEBoK explicitly recognizes and embraces the intertwining between systems engineering and software
engineering, as well as defining the relationship between the SEBoK and the Guide to the Software Engineering
Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) (Bourque, and Fairley 2014; IEEE Computer Society 2022).
This knowledge area describes the nature of software, provides an overview of the SWEBOK, describes the concepts
that are shared by systems engineers and software engineers, and indicates the similarities and difference in how
software engineers and systems engineers apply these concepts and use common terminology. It also describes the
nature of the relationships between software engineering and systems engineering and describes some of the
methods, models and tools used by software engineers.
Topics
• Software Engineering in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle
• The Nature of Software
• An Overview of the SWEBOK Guide
• Key Points a Systems Engineer Needs to Know about Software Engineering
• Software Engineering Features - Models, Methods, Tools, Standards, and Metrics
Discussion
Software engineers, like systems engineers:
• engage in analysis and design, allocation of requirements, oversight of component development, component
integration, verification and validation, life cycle sustainment, and system retirement.
• work with or as a component specialist (for example, user interface, database, computation, and communication
specialists) who construct or otherwise obtain the needed software components.
• adapt existing components and incorporate components supplied by customers and affiliated organizations.
These commonalities would make it appear that software engineering is merely an application of systems
engineering, but this is only a superficial appearance. The differences between the two disciplines arise from two
fundamental concerns:
1. Differences in educational backgrounds (traditional engineering disciplines for SE and the computing disciplines
for SWE) and work experiences that result in different approaches to problem solving, and
2. Different ways of applying shared concepts based on the contrasting natures of the software medium and the
physical media of traditional engineering.
Table 1 itemizes some of the shared concepts that are applied in different ways by systems engineers and software
engineers. Each discipline has made contributions to the other. Table 1 indicates the methods and techniques
developed by systems engineers adapted for use by software engineers and, conversely, those that have been adapted
for use by systems engineers.
Table 1. Adaptation of Methods Across SE and SWE (Fairley and Willshire 2011) Reprinted with
permission of Dick Fairley and Mary Jane Willshire. All other rights are reserved by the copyright
owner. *
Systems Engineering Methods Software Engineering Methods

Adapted to Software Engineering Adapted to Systems Engineering
• Stakeholder Analysis • Model-Driven Development

• Requirements Engineering • UML-SysML
• Functional Decomposition • Use Cases
• Design Constraints • Object-Oriented Design
• Architectural Design • Iterative Development
• Design Criteria • Agile Methods
• Design Tradeoffs • Continuous Integration
• Interface Specification • Process Modeling
• Traceability • Process Improvement
• Configuration Management • Incremental Verification and Validation
• Systematic Verification and Validation
The articles in this knowledge area give an overview of software and software engineering aimed at systems
engineers. It also provides more details on the relationship between systems and software life cycles and some of the
detailed tools used by software engineers. As systems become more dependent on software as a primary means of
delivering stakeholder value, the historical distinction between software and systems engineering may need to be
challenged. This is a current area of joint discussion between the two communities which will affect the future
knowledge in both SEBoK and SWEBoK.
References
Works Cited
Bourque, P. and Fairley, R.E. (eds.). 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK)). Los
Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at http://www.Swebok.org
Fairley, R.E. and Willshire M.J., 2011. Teaching systems engineering to software engineering students, CSEET
2011, Software Engineering Education and Training, p: 219-226, ISBN: 978-1-4577-0349-2.
IEEE Computer Society. 2022. SWEBOK Guide Version 4.0 beta. Accessed August 28, 2023. Available at
https://waseda.app.box.com/s/elnhhnezdycn2q2zp4fe0f2t1fvse5rn.
Primary References
Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at http://www.Swebok.org
Brooks, F. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month, Anniversary Edition. Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
Fairley, R.E. 2009. Managing and Leading Software Projects. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Pressman, R. 2009. Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach. 7th Ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw Hill.
Schneidewind, N. 2009. Systems and Software Engineering with Applications. New York, NY, USA: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Sommerville, I. 2010. Software Engineering. 9th Ed. Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.

Software Engineering in the Systems Engineering

Life Cycle
Lead Authors: Tom Hilburn, Dick Fairley, Contributing Author: Alice Squires
This article describes how software engineering (SwE) life cycle processes integrate with the SE life cycle. A joint
workshop organized by INCOSE, the Systems Engineering Research Center and the IEEE Computer Society was
held to consider this relationship (Pyster et al. 2015). This workshop concluded that:
Software is fundamental to the performance, features, and value of most modern engineering systems. It
is not merely part of the system, but often shapes the system architecture; drives much of its complexity
and emergent behavior; strains its verification; and drives much of the cost and schedule of its
development. Given how significant an impact software has on system development and given how
complex modern systems are, one would expect the relationship between the disciplines of systems
engineering (SE) and software engineering (SWE) to be well defined. However, the relationship is, in
fact, not well understood or articulated.
In this article we give some of the basic relationships between SwE and SE and discuss how these can be related to
some of the SEBoK knowledge areas.
Systems Engineering and Software Engineering Life Cycles

The Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBoK) (Bourque and Fairley, 2014) describes the
life cycle of a software product as:
• analysis and design,
• construction,
• testing,
• operation,
• maintenance, and eventually
• retirement or replacement.
This life cycle is common to most other mature engineering disciplines.
In Part 3 of the SEBoK, SE and Management, there is a discussion of SE life cycle models and life cycle processes.
A Generic Life Cycle Model is described and reproduced in Fig. 1 below. This is used to describe necessary stages
in the life cycle of a typical engineered system.
Figure 1. A Generic Life Cycle Model. (SEBoK Original)
Part 3 defines a collection of generic SE life cycle processes which define the activities and information needed
across the SE life cycle. These processes include activities which contribute across the whole life cycle, with peaks
of focused activity in certain stages (see Applying Life Cycle Processes for details).
The following sections provide a brief discussion of how SwE life cycle processes fit into SE life cycle process
models. In practice, the details of this relationship are a key part of how a system life cycle is planned and delivered.
The relationship will be shaped by the operating domain practice and solution type. Some examples of this are
provided in the Implementation Examples.
Systems Engineering and Software Engineering Standards

The Systems Engineering life cycle processes described in Part 3, SE and Management, are largely based on those
defined in the ISO/IEC/IEEE SE Life Cycle Processes 15288 Standard (2015).
The SWEBoK references the equivalent ISO/IEC/IEEE Software Engineering Life Cycle Processes 12207 Standard
(2008), which defines a very similar set of processes for software systems. Figure 2 shows the relationship between
the Enabling, Acquisition, Project and Technical Systems and Software processes in both 15288 and 12207 and the
software specific processes of 12207. This alignment is from the last updates of both 12207 and 15288 in 2008. The
SE processes have been further updated in 15288:2015, see Systems Engineering and Management for details. This
change has not yet been applied to 12207. An update of 12207 was released in 2017, in which the alignment to
15288 was reviewed. See Alignment and Comparison of the Standards for more discussion of the relationships
between the standards.
Figure 2. Aligned Process Models for

ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 & 12207: 2008 (Adapted
from Roedler 2011). Reprinted with permission
of Garry Roedler. All other rights are reserved by
Systems Engineering and Software Engineering Life Cycle Relationships

Pyster et al. (2015) define two technical dimensions of engineered systems and of the engineering disciplines
associated with them. The vertical dimensions of a system are those that modularize around technically focused
engineering concerns involving specific elements of the system; the horizontal dimensions of a system involve
cross-cutting concerns at the systems level. Examples of vertical concerns include quality attributes and performance
effectiveness; and cost, schedule and risk of physical, organizational or human system elements associated with a
particular technology domain. Examples of horizontal concerns include addressing evolving customer preferences
that drive systems-level quality attributes, trade-off and optimization; resolving system architecture, decomposition
and integration issues; implementing system development processes; and balancing system economics, cost, risk and
schedule.
In complex systems projects, SE has a horizontal role while traditional engineering disciplines such as electrical,
mechanical, and chemical engineering have vertical roles. To the extent that it is responsible for all aspects of the
successful delivery of software related elements, SwE can be considered as one of the vertical disciplines. All of
these traditional vertical disciplines will have some input to the horizontal dimension. However, the nature of
software and its role in many complex systems makes SwE a critical discipline for many horizontal concerns. This is
discussed further below.
The ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207 software engineering standard (2008) considers two situations:
• The life cycle of software products, containing minimal physical hardware, should use software specific processes
and a simple life cycle
• The life cycle of systems with a significant software content (sometimes called software intensive systems)
should integrate the software processes into the SE life cycle
The second of these situations is the one relevant to the practice of SE and requires a significant horizontal
contribution from SwE.
The relationship central to this is the way SwE Implementation Processes (see Fig 2) are used in the SE life cycle
to support the implementation of software intensive system elements. This simple relationship must be seen in the
context of the concurrency, iteration and recursion relationship between SE life cycle processes described in
Applying Life Cycle Processes. This means that, in general, software requirements and architecture processes will be
applied alongside system requirements and architecture processes; while software integration and test processes are
applied alongside system integration, verification and validation processes. These interrelationships help with
vertical software concerns, ensuring detailed software design and construction issues are considered at the system
level. They also help with horizontal concerns, ensuring whole system issues are considered and are influenced by an
understanding of software. See the Nature of Software for more details.
The ways these related processes work together will depend on the systems approach to solution synthesis used and
how this influences the life cycle. If a top down approach is used, problem needs and system architecture will drive
software implementation and realization. If a bottom up approach is used, the architecture of existing software will
strongly influence both the system solution and the problem which can be considered. In Applying Life Cycle
Processes, a "middle-out" approach is described which combines these two ideas and is the most common way to
develop systems. This approach needs a two-way relationship between SE and SwE technical processes.
The SW Support Processes may also play these vertical and horizontal roles. Part 3 contains knowledge areas on
both System Deployment and Use which includes operation, maintenance and logistics; and Systems Engineering
Management which covers the project processes shown in Figure 2. SwE support processes focus on the successful
vertical deployment and use of software system elements and the management needed to achieve this. They also
support their equivalent horizontal SE processes in contributing to the success of the whole system life cycle. The
Software Reuse Processes have a particularly important role to play in deployment and use and Product and Service
Life Management processes. The latter considers Service Life Extension; Capability Updates, Upgrades, and
Modernization; and system Disposal and Retirement. All of these horizontal software engineering activities rely on
the associated SE activities having a sufficient understanding of the strengths and limitations of software and SwE
(see Key Points a Systems Engineer Needs to Know about Software Engineering).
The Life Cycle Models knowledge area also defines how Vee and Iterative life cycle models provide a framework to
tailor the generic life cycle and process definitions to different types of system development. Both models, with
some modification, apply equally to the development of products and services containing software. Thus, the simple
relationships between SE and SwE processes will form the basis for tailoring to suit project needs within a selected
life cycle model.
Software and Systems Challenges

Pyster et al. (2015) define three classes of software intensive systems distinguished by the primary sources of
novelty, functionality, complexity and risk in their conception, development, operation and evolution. These are
briefly described below:
• Physical Systems operate on and generate matter or energy. While they often utilize computation and software
technologies as components, those components are not dominant in the horizontal dimension of engineering.
Rather, in such systems, they are defined as discrete system elements and viewed and handled as vertical
concerns.
• Computational Systems include those in which computational behavior and, ipso facto, software are dominant at
the systems level. The primary purpose of these systems is to operate on and produce data and information. While
these systems always include physical and human elements, these are not the predominant challenges in system
development, operation and evolution.
• Cyber-Physical Systems are a complex combination of computational and physical dimensions. Such systems
are innovative, functionally complex and risky in both their cyber and physical dimensions. They pose major
horizontal engineering challenges across the board. In cyber-physical systems, cyber and physical elements
collaborate in complex ways to deliver expected system behavior.
Some of the challenges of physical and computational systems are well known and can be seen in many SE and SwE
case studies. For example, physical system life cycles often make key decisions about the system architecture or
hardware implementation which limit the subsequent development of software architecture and designs. This can
lead to software which is inefficient and difficult or expensive to change. Problems which arise later in the life of
such systems may be dealt with by changing software or human elements. This is sometimes done in a way which
does not fully consider SwE design and testing practices. Similarly, computational systems may be dominated by the
software architecture, without sufficient care taken to consider the best solutions for enabling hardware or people. In
particular, operator interfaces, training and support may not be considered leading to the need for expensive
organizational fixes once they are in use. Many computational systems in the past have been developed without a
clear view of the user need they contribute to, or the other systems they must work with to do so. These and other
related issues point to a need for system and software engineers with a better understanding of each other's
disciplines. Pyster et al. (2015) consider how SE and SwE education might be better integrated to help achieve this
aim.
Examples of cyber-physical systems increasingly abound – smart automobiles, power grids, robotic manufacturing
systems, defense and international security systems, supply-chain systems, the so-called internet of things, etc. In
these systems there is no clear distinction between software elements and the whole system solution. The use of
software in these systems is central to the physical outcome and software is often the integrating element which
brings physical elements and people together. These ideas are closely aligned with the Service System Engineering
approach described in Part 4.
SEBoK Part 3 includes a Business and Mission Analysis process which is based on the equivalent process in the
updated ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015). This process enables SE to be involved in the selection and bounding of the
problem situation which forms the starting point for an engineered system life cycle. For cyber physical systems, an
understanding of the nature of software is needed in the formulation of the problem, since this is often fundamentally
driven by the use of software to create complex adaptive solution concepts. This close coupling of software, physical
and human system elements across the system of interest continues throughout the system life cycle making it
necessary to consider all three in most horizontal system level decisions.
The life cycle of cyber physical systems cannot be easily partitioned into SE and SwE achieving their own outcomes
but working together on horizontal system issues. It will require a much more closely integrated approach, requiring
systems and software engineers with a complementary set of competencies, and changes how the two disciplines are
seen in both team and organizational structures. See Enabling Systems Engineering.
References
Works Cited
ISO/IECIEEE. 2008. Systems and Software Engineering — Software Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standards (ISO)/Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer
Society, ISO//IECIEEE 12207:2008(E).
Pyster, A., Adcock, R., Ardis, M., Cloutier, R., Henry, D., Laird, L., Lawson, H. ‘Bud’., Pennotti, M., Sullivan, K.,
Wade J. 2015. “Exploring the relationship between systems engineering and software engineering.” 13th Conference
on Systems Engineering Research (CSER). In Procedia Computer Science, Volume 44, 2015, pp. 708-717.
Primary References
Pyster, A., Adcock, R., Ardis, M., Cloutier, R., Henry, D., Laird, L., Lawson, H. ‘Bud’., Pennotti, M., Sullivan, K.,
Wade J. 2015. Exploring the relationship between systems engineering and software engineering. 13th Conference
on Systems Engineering Research (CSER). In Procedia Computer Science, Volume 44, 2015, pp. 708-717.
Roedler, G. 2010. An overview of ISO/IEC/IEE 15288, system life cycle processes. Asian Pacific Council on Systems
Engineering (APCOSE) Conference.

The Nature of Software

Lead Author: Alice Squires
The nature of the software medium has many consequences for systems engineering (SE) of software-intensive
systems. Fred Brooks has famously observed that four properties of software, taken together, differentiate it from
other kinds of engineering artifacts (Brooks 1995). These four properties are:
1. complexity,
2. conformity,
3. changeability,
4. invisibility.
Brooks states:
Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no
two parts are alike (at least above the statement level). If they are, we make the two similar parts into a
subroutine — open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers,
buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound. (Brooks 1995, p 82)
Complexity
The complexity of software arises from the large number of unique interacting parts in a software system. The parts
are unique because they are encapsulated as functions, subroutines, or objects, and invoked as needed rather than
being replicated. Software parts have several different kinds of interactions, including serial and concurrent
invocations, state transitions, data couplings, and interfaces to databases and external systems.
Depiction of a software entity often requires several different design representations to portray the numerous static
structures, dynamic couplings, and modes of interaction that exist in computer software. Complexity within the parts
and in the connections among parts requires that changes undergo substantial design rigor and regression testing.
Software provides functionality for components that are embedded, distributed and data centric. Software can
implement simple control loops as well as complex algorithms and heuristics.
Complexity can hide defects that may not be discovered easily, thus requiring significant additional and unplanned
rework.
Conformity
Software, unlike a physical product, has no underlying natural principles which it must conform to, such as Newton’s
laws of motion. However, software must conform to exacting specifications in the representation of each of its parts,
in the interfaces to other internal parts, and in the connections to the environment in which it operates. A missing
semicolon or other syntactic error can be detected by a compiler, but a defect in the program logic or a timing error
may be difficult to detect until encountered during operation.
Unlike software, tolerance among the interfaces of physical entities is the foundation of manufacturing and
assembly. No two physical parts that are joined together have, or are required to have, exact matches. There are no
corresponding tolerances in the interfaces among software entities or between software entities and their
environments. There are no interface specifications for software stating that a parameter can be an integer plus or
minus 2%. Interfaces among software parts must agree exactly in numbers, types of parameters and kinds of
couplings.
Lack of conformity can cause problems when an existing software component cannot be reused as planned because it
does not conform to the needs of the product under development. Lack of conformity might not be discovered until
late in a project, thus necessitating the development and integration of an acceptable component to replace the one
that cannot be reused. This requires an unplanned allocation of resources (usually) and can delay project completion.
Changeability
Software coordinates the operation of physical components and provides most of the functionality in
software-intensive systems. Because software is the most malleable (easily changed) element in a software-intensive
system, it is the most frequently changed element. This is particularly true during the late stages of a development
project and during system sustainment. However, this does not mean that software is easy to change. Complexity and
the need for conformity can make changing software an extremely difficult task. Changing one part of a software
system often results in undesired side effects in other parts of the system, requiring more changes before the software
can operate at maximum efficiency.
Invisibility
Software is said to be invisible because it has no physical properties. While the effects of executing software on a
digital computer are observable, software itself cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, or heard. Software is an
intangible entity because our five human senses are incapable of directly sensing it.
Work products such as requirements specifications, design documents, source code and object code are
representations of software, but they are not the software. At the most elemental level, software resides in the
magnetization and current flow in an enormous number of electronic elements within a digital device. Because
software has no physical presence, software engineers must use different representations at different levels of
abstraction in an attempt to visualize the inherently invisible entity.
Uniqueness
One other point about the nature of software that Brooks alludes to but does not explicitly call out is the uniqueness
of software. Software and software projects are unique for the following reasons:
• Software has no physical properties;
• Software is the product of intellect-intensive teamwork;
• Productivity of software developers varies more widely than the productivity of other engineering disciplines;
• Estimation and planning for software projects is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, which can be at
best partially mitigated by best practices;
• Risk management for software projects is predominantly process-oriented;
• Software alone is useless, as it is always a part of a larger system; and
• Software is the most frequently changed element of software intensive systems.
References
Works Cited
Fairley, R.E. 2009. Managing and Leading Software Projects. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Primary References
Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Available at: http://www.Swebok.org.
Fairley, R.E. 2009. Managing and Leading Software Projects. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

An Overview of the SWEBOK Guide

Lead Authors: Hironori Washizaki, Maria-Isabel Sanchez-Segura, Juan Garbajosa, Steve Tockey, Kenneth E
Nidiffer, and Annette D. Reilly
Software is everywhere. Software and systems engineers are leading the way for the digital transformation of social,
economic, military, and environmental systems at an increasing rate of change. Advanced software-enabled
capabilities allow software and systems engineers to address and anticipate emerging and complex challenges. Most
systems of any complexity today are modeled and controlled by software; hence, the term “software intensive
systems” is commonly used to describe them. At the end of 2022, the IEEE Computer Society (IEEE-CS) released
beta version 4 of the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) (IEEE Computer Society 2022). When
the final version 4.0 is published, it will replace version 3 which appeared in 2014 (Bourque and Fairley 2014). As
have previous versions, SWEBOK 4.0 will help guide both systems engineering and software engineering
professionals to long-established software life cycle processes and new insights for dealing with the demands of the
digital era. This article uses SWEBOK 4.0 beta to explain how and why the new SWEBOK takes into consideration
the needs of digital era software engineers immersed in an industry demanding visionary solutions.
Introduction
ISO/IEC/IEEE Systems and Software Engineering Vocabulary (SEVOCAB) defines software engineering as “the
application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of
software; that is, the application of engineering to software.” (ISO/IEC/IEEE n.d.)
It is important to note that systems engineering, and software engineering are distinct disciplines with different but
somewhat overlapping core competencies. Due to the inherent characteristics of software intensive systems, these
disciplines often approach problem solving from different perspectives. For example, systems engineers apply their
problem-solving skills to develop physical, computational, social, and hybrid systems. Depending on the system,
those skills could be based on a wide range of disciplines including mathematics, any of the physical and social
sciences, law, management, and a myriad of other disciplines. Software engineers tend to apply their
problem-solving skills on a narrower set of disciplines, especially discrete mathematics and computer science, to
develop computational systems and subsystems. Also, software Is a logical medium. Software components of
software-enabled systems are logical constructions expressed in algorithmic form. This contrasts with the physical
and social components of systems that are realized through mechanical, electrical, chemical, biological, social,
human and other elements. Both disciplines are critical to solving the complex challenges of the future as evidenced
by disruptive innovation and increasing complexity in new systems and systems of systems which is causing a
convergence among disciplines.
SWEBOK Guide Objectives

The Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), published by the IEEE Computer Society
(IEEE CS), represents the current state of generally accepted, consensus-based knowledge emanating from the
interplay between software engineering theory and practice. (Bourke and Fairley 2014, IEEE Computer Society
2022). The objectives include the provision of guidance for learners, researchers, and practitioners to identify and
share a mutual understanding of “generally accepted knowledge” in software engineering. This guidance defines the
boundary between software engineering and related disciplines, and provides a foundation for certifications and
educational curricula.
The Guide should not be confused with the Body of Knowledge itself which exists in published literature. It is
similar in this regard to the SEBoK. For example, the Guide addresses knowledge areas (KAs) in terms of “what”
activities are being done versus “how” they are accomplished. Bodies Of Knowledge (BOKs) are often a formal way
of referring to core competencies, or what should be known to be successful in a practitioner’s area of expertise.
(Washizaki, et al. 2023) Every profession is based on a body of knowledge, although that knowledge is not always
defined in a concise manner. In cases where normality exists, the body of knowledge is “generally recognized” by
practitioners and may be codified in a variety of ways for a variety of different uses. But in many cases, a guide to a
body of knowledge is formally documented, usually in a form that permits it to be used for such purposes as
development and accreditation of academic and training programs, certification of specialists, or professional
licensing. (IEEE Computer Society 2022, IEEE Computer Society 2014) The purpose of the Guide is to describe the
portion of the Body of Knowledge that is accepted, to organize that portion, and to provide topical access to it. The
Guide is also aligned with the following objectives:
1. To promote a consistent view of software engineering worldwide
2. To specify the scope of, and clarify the place of software engineering with respect to other disciplines such as
computer science, project management, computer engineering, and mathematics
3. To characterize the contents of the software engineering discipline
4. To provide topical access to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge
5. To provide a foundation for curriculum development and for individual certification and licensing material.
Overview of the SWEBOK Guide

The Guide represents the current state of accepted, consensus-based knowledge emanating from the interplay
between software engineering theory and practice. The origins of the Guide go back to the late 1990s. Much like the
software engineering discipline, the Guide has continued to evolve over the last 20 years to reflect the educational,
industrial, social, technical, and technological changes in society. Version 4 of the Guide will be released in 2023 to
improve its currency, readability, consistency, and usability.
Figure 1 summarizes the transition from Guide V3 to Guide V4. The current draft Guide V4 contains 18 knowledge
areas (KAs), followed by several appendices. A KA is an identified area of software engineering defined by its
knowledge requirements and described in terms of its concepts, component processes, practices, inputs, outputs,
tools, and techniques. All KAs have been updated in V4 to reflect changes in software engineering since the
publication of Guide V3. The new version reflects modern development practices, techniques, and the advancement
of standards. Especially, agile and DevOps have been incorporated into almost all KAs since these models have been
widely accepted since Guide V3 was published. Agile models typically have frequent demonstrations of working
software to a customer in short iterative cycles with agile practices involving KAs. Furthermore, emerging platforms
and technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and Internet of Things (IoT), have
been incorporated into the foundation KAs. Also, there are three new KAs: Software Architecture, Software
Operations, and Software Security. It is important to note there has also been more emphasis on Software Security in
other relevant KAs such as software requirements. These additions better reflect contemporary software engineering
practice, the pressing need to address cybersecurity as early as possible in developing distributed, networked
systems, and non-distributed systems for use by the public at large, and the need for specialized skills to be able to
work effectively in these areas.
Figure 1: From SWEBOK V3 to SWEBOK V4
The 18 KAs in Guide V4 are:
KA1 - Software Requirements: Describes the activities involved in eliciting, analyzing, specifying, validating, and
managing software requirements. The importance of requirements documentation for long-term maintenance is
added. The “what’s” and “how’s” of work on software requirements in a project should be determined by the type of
constructed software and not by the project life cycle. Also, it includes a deeper, broader coverage of requirements
specification techniques, including model-driven requirements specification and acceptance criteria-based
requirements specification.
KA2 – Software Architecture: This is a new KA resulting from a realization that architecture is a significant and
distinct discipline over and above software design. Software architecture consists of fundamental structures of
software elements, relations among them, and properties of both elements and relations. As software tends toward
larger, ever more complex systems, architecture concerns move beyond construction to connectivity while assuring
new levels of quality for safety, security, and dependability. Software architecture aims to “satisfice” all stakeholders,
while the focus of software design is on the transformation of that vision into a feasible implementation.
KA 3 - Software Design: Focuses on the process of transforming requirements into a representation of the software
system. Software is pervasive and critical in all aspects of modern life. The success of pervasive software depends on
broadening the background of people with design skills, especially as emerging technologies, faster delivery times,
and emphasis on agile, lean, and incremental design impact the development process.
KA4 - Software Construction: Covers the activities involved in translating the software design into executable code.
This section has been updated to reflect modern construction techniques and practices: managing dependencies,
cross-platform development and migration, feedback loops for construction, visual programming, and
low-code/zero-code (i.e., called no code) platforms. Furthermore, major updates were made to some of the existing
sections, especially about reuse, life-cycle models, construction languages and environments.
KA5 - Software Testing: Deals with the various approaches and techniques used to assess software correctness and
verify its conformance to requirements. This material has been revised to align with the shift left testing movement.
This KA provides new content about software testing in recent development processes (like Agile, DevOps, and
Test-Driven Development), application domains (like automotive, healthcare, mobile, legal, and IoT), emerging
technologies (such as AI, blockchain, cloud) and quality attributes (like security and privacy).
KA6 - Software Engineering Operations: This is a new knowledge area that addresses the evolution of the role of
software engineers to include DevOps and infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) activity while eliminating the
organizational silos between development, maintenance, and operations. This new KA describes operations
fundamentals, planning, delivery and control activities, and techniques.
KA 7 - Software Maintenance (SM): Software maintenance addresses fundamentals, processes, and techniques to
provide cost-effective support for software in operation. Activities, such as determining the logistical support needed
for the transition, are performed, and applied during the pre-delivery stage, whereas software surveillance,
modification, training, and operating or interfacing with a help desk are post-stage activities. Software Maintenance
categories and the software process have been updated to align with the 2022 version of ISO/IEC/IEEE 14764.
(ISO/IEEE/IEEE 2022) Also, continuous integration, delivery, testing, and deployment have been added as a new
topic in response to the growing popularity of regrouping development, maintenance, and operations tasks to
improve software engineering productivity.
KA 8 - Software Configuration Management (SCM): Focuses on four basic functions of SCM: Configuration
Identification: identifying all configuration items (CI) of a software system's state; Control changes: coordinating
and limiting access to configurations in a software system; Configuration auditing: a series of reviews confirming
that changes are being made to conform to a software system's desired state; and Status Accounting: automatically
recording information about CIs, relationships, baselines and changes on any CI developed, as well as why they were
made, when they were made, and who made them. In SWEBOK Guide V4, SCM has been explained considering all
its facets. It stresses that the SCM process plan must be defined first before all the decisions and commitments
included in the plan are somehow incorporated into existing tools for execution rather than the other way around, as
was the usual practice in the past. Keeping track of configuration items (CI) relationships is essential to visualize the
potential impact of a change on a CI over other CIs.
KA9 - Software Engineering Management: Describes the activities of the planning, organizing, estimating, and
tracking of software projects. Practices are changing to meet the needs of society caused by increases in the size and
complexity of software as well as greater pressure to quickly release software enabling products to market in rapidly
changing environments. The results are fundamental management shifts in how work is performed.
KA10 - Software Engineering Process: Describes the activities, methods, and techniques used to define, implement,
assess, and improve the software development process. Software engineers face a challenging and evolving, highly
technological landscape due to fast-moving technology, societal events and changes, and a trend towards
digitalization involving very many different domains. This is a point of no return that has facilitated the ongoing
adoption of Agile and DevOps. Nevertheless, now more than ever, the software engineering processes applied to
create products will continue to evolve, profiting from advances in the engineering dimension and learning, new and
more advanced tools, and the latest knowledge from the other KAs. The KA describes this new consensus,
highlighting the interaction with other KAs.
KA 11 - Software Engineering Models and Methods: Introduces different models, methods, and tools that support
the software development process. Models have been updated and accurately classified by type. Aspect-oriented
development has been added in the document as well as fundamental model-driven and model-based methods, have
also been introduced. Agile methods have been extended a great deal to incorporate modern techniques, such as lean
development, as well as large-scale and enterprise agile methods. On this note, DevOps and release engineering have
also been introduced to clarify the release aspect of agile methods.
KA12 - Software Quality: Addresses the activities and techniques involved in achieving and evaluating software
quality. This chapter was overhauled for alignment with notions of processes/product quality. It now includes new
topics: (1) Software Dependability and Integrity Levels, (2) Standards, Models and Certifications, (3) Policies,
Processes and Procedures, and (4) Quality Control and Testing.
KA13 – Software Security: This is a new knowledge area that focuses on the broader topics of security, particularly
security fundamentals, security management, security tools, and domain-specific security, as well as major security
engineering activities (such as security testing) that were briefly described under the Computing Foundations KA in
the last SWEBOK edition. The existence of a separate KA emphasizes that security must be a first-class quality
attribute in any development since almost any software system is connected to others, resulting in increased security
risks.
KA14 - Software Engineering Professional Practice: Covers ethical considerations, professional codes of conduct,
and the role of software engineering in society. Additions and revisions address the following areas: (1) Professional
practices following generally accepted practices, standards, and guidelines set forth by the applicable professional
societies, (2) User interface/user experience (UI/UX) inclusive design, (3) Considerations on diversity and inclusion,
and (4) Considerations on agility.
KA15 - Software Engineering Economics: Focuses on the essence of engineering economics, the science of making
decisions, and broadening the more traditional, purely financial view of engineering economics. Value does not
always derive from money alone; that is, value can also derive from the “unquantifiable” such as, corporate
citizenship, employee well-being, environmental friendliness, customer loyalty, and so on. This KA also focuses on
more systematic pre-project decisions where a project is not under development but is being envisioned.
Note: Minor improvements in topic presentation in the next three KA 16-18. Discussions of Artificial Intelligence
and Machine Learning were added. Furthermore, the revision includes a deeper coverage of measurement,
particularly its implications for programming languages, and a more comprehensive discussion of root cause
analysis.
KA16 - Computing Foundations: Covers the fundamental concepts and theories that underlie the discipline of
software engineering.
KA 17 - Mathematical Foundations: Introduces mathematical techniques and principles relevant to software
engineering, such as logic, probability, and discrete mathematics.
KA - 18 Engineering Foundations: Covers engineering principles and practices applicable to software engineering,
including system engineering and project management.
Concluding Comments
A significant component of productivity today is the capabilities enabled by software systems. Software is a
maturing science and engineering discipline; therefore, a need exists to continuously provide new guidance materials
that reflect areas that are becoming important in modern software engineering. The Software Engineering Body of
Knowledge Version V4 is a leading product which will help address this issue. It will serve as a reference for
educators, practitioners, and organizations to understand the essential concepts and skills needed to design, develop,
and maintain current and future software systems.
SWEBOK V4 represents the next step in the evolution of the software engineering profession and is written under
the auspices of the Profession and Education Activities Board of the IEEE Computer Society. An international team
of subject matter experts was assembled with the goal of developing the update. Given the purpose of this article, a
significant portion of this document includes verbatim or near-verbatim elements of the SWEBOK Guide V4 which
is about to go out for public review and that of (Washnizaki, et al. 2023) written by several members of the
international team.
SWEBOK is described inside the SEBoK and there are some clear similarities and differences between the two
BOKs. Each BOK is a comprehensive guide that outlines the core knowledge areas, principles, and best practices.
SWEBOK concentrates specifically on the software engineering domain, providing a detailed overview of software
development processes and methodologies. SEBoK, on the other hand, has a broader scope and addresses the entire
systems engineering domain, including software and beyond, considering the interaction and integration of various
components in complex systems.
References
Works Cited
IEEE Computer Society. 2014. Software engineering competency model (SWECOM), Version 1.0. Accessed August
29, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. computer. org/ volunteering/ boards-and-committees/
professional-educational-activities/software-engineering-competency-model.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2017. ISO/IEC/IEEE Systems and Software Engineering – Vocabulary. Accessed August 28, 2023.
Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/71952.htmlhttps://www.iso.org/standard/71952.html.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2022. ISO/IEC/IEEE 14764-2022 Software Life Cycle Processes – Maintenance. Accessed August
28, 2023. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/80710.html.
Washizaki, H., Sanchez-Segura, M-I., Garbajosa, J., Tockey, S., Nidiffer, K.E. 2023. “Envisioning Software
Engineer Training Needs in The Digital Era Through the SWEBOK V4 Prism”, Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T 2023), August 8-9, 2023.
Waseda University, Tokyo Japan.
Primary References
None.

Key Points a Systems Engineer Needs to Know

about Software Engineering
Lead Author: Dick Fairley, Contributing Author: Alice Squires
The field of software engineering is extensive and specialized. Its importance to modern systems makes it necessary
for systems engineers to be knowledgeable about software engineering and its relationship to systems engineering.
Key Concepts a Systems Engineer Needs to Know about Software Engineering

The following items are significant aspects that systems engineers need to know about software and software
engineering. Most are documented in (Fairley and Willshire 2011):
1. For the time, effort, and expense devoted to developing it, software is more complex than most other
system components - Software complexity arises because few elements in a software program (even down to the
statement level) are identical, as well as because of the large number of possible decision paths found even in
small programs, with the number of decision paths through a large program often being astronomical. There are
several detailed references on software complexity. The SWEBOK (Bourque and Fairley 2014) discusses
minimizing complexity as part of software construction fundamentals. Zuse (1991) has a highly cited article on
software complexity measures and methods. Chapters 2 and 3 of the SWEBOK also have further references.
2. Software testing and reviews are sampling processes - In all but the simplest cases, exhaustive testing of
software is impossible because of the large number of decision paths through most programs. Also, the combined
values of the input variables selected from a wide combinatorial range may reveal defects that other combinations
of the variables would not detect. Software test cases and test scenarios are chosen in an attempt to gain
confidence that the testing samples are representative of the ways the software will be used in practice. Structured
reviews of software are an effective mechanism for finding defects, but the significant effort required limits
exhaustive reviewing. Criteria must be established to determine which components (or sub-components) should
be reviewed. Although there are similar concerns about exhaustive testing and reviewing of physical products, the
complexity of software makes software testing, reviews, and the resulting assurance provided more challenging.
Other points include:
1. All software testing approaches and techniques are heuristic. Hence, there is no universal "best" approach,
practice, or technique for testing, since these must be selected based on the software context.
2. Exhaustive testing is not possible.
3. Errors in software tend to cluster within the software structures; therefore, any one specific approach or a
random approach to testing is not advised.
4. Pesticide paradox exists. As a result, running the same test over and over on the same software-system
provides no new information.
5. Testing can reveal the presence of defects but cannot guarantee that there will be no errors, except under the
specific conditions of a given test.
6. Testing, including verification and validation (V&V), must be performed early and continually throughout the
lifecycle (end to end).
7. Even after extensive testing and V&V, errors are likely to remain after long term use of the software.
8. Chapter 4 of the SWEBOK discusses software testing and provides a bibliography.
3. Software often provides the interfaces that interconnect other system components - Software is often
referred to as the glue that holds a system together because the interfaces among components, as well as the
interfaces to the environment and other systems, are often provided by digital sensors and controllers that operate
via software. Because software interfaces are behavioral rather than physical, the interactions that occur among
software components often exhibit emergent behaviors that cannot always be predicted in advance. In addition to
component interfaces, software usually provides the computational and decision algorithms needed to generate
command and control signals. The SWEBOK has multiple discussions of interfaces: Chapter 2 on Software
Design is a good starting point and includes a bibliography.
4. Every software product is unique - The goal of manufacturing physical products is to produce replicated copies
that are as nearly identical as much as possible, given the constraints of material sciences and manufacturing tools
and techniques. Because replication of existing software is a trivial process (as compared to manufacturing of
physical products), the goal of software development is to produce one perfect copy (or as nearly perfect as can be
achieved given the constraints on schedule, budget, resources, and technology). Much of software development
involves altering existing software. The resulting product, whether new or modified, is uniquely different from all
other software products known to the software developers. Chapter 3 of the SWEBOK provides discussion of
software reuse and several references.
5. In many cases, requirements allocated to software must be renegotiated and reprioritized - Software
engineers often see more efficient and effective ways to restate and prioritize requirements allocated to software.
Sometimes, the renegotiated requirements have system-wide impacts that must be taken into account. One or
more senior software engineers should be, and often are, involved in analysis of system-level requirements. This
topic is addressed in the SWEBOK in Chapter 1, with topics on the iterative nature of software and change
management.
6. Software requirements are prone to frequent change - Software is the most frequently changed component in
complex systems, especially late in the development process and during system sustainment. This is because
software is perceived to be the most easily changed component of a complex system. This is not to imply that
changes to software requirements and the resulting changes to the impacted software can be easily done without
undesired side effects. Careful software configuration management is necessary, as discussed in Chapter 6 of the
SWEBOK, which includes extensive references.

7. Small changes to software can have large negative effects (A corollary to frequently changing software
requirements: There are no small software changes) - In several well-known cases, modifying a few lines of code
in very large systems that incorporated software negatively impacted the safety, security, and/or reliability of
those systems. Applying techniques such as traceability, impact analysis, object-oriented software development,
and regression testing reduces undesired side effects of changes to software code. These approaches limit but do
not eliminate this problem.
8. Some quality attributes for software are subjectively evaluated - Software typically provides the interfaces to
systems that have human users and operators. The intended users and operators of these systems often
subjectively evaluate quality attributes, such as ease of use, adaptability, robustness, and integrity. These quality
attributes determine the acceptance of a system by its intended users and operators. In some cases, systems have
been rejected because they were not judged to be suitable for use by the intended users in the intended
environment, even though those systems satisfied their technical requirements. Chapter 10 of the SWEBOK
provides an overview of software quality, with references.
9. The term prototyping has different connotations for systems engineers and software engineers - For a
systems engineer, a prototype is typically the first functioning version of hardware. For software engineers,
software prototyping is primarily used for two purposes: (1) as a mechanism to elicit user requirements by
iteratively evolving mock-ups of user interfaces, and (2) as an experimental implementation of some limited
element of a proposed system to explore and evaluate alternative algorithms. Chapter 1 of the SWEBOK
discusses this and provides excellent references.
10. Cyber security is a present and growing concern for systems that incorporate software - In addition to the
traditional specialty disciplines of safety, reliability, and maintainability, systems engineering teams increasingly
include security specialists at both the software level and the systems level in an attempt to cope with the
cyber-attacks that may be encountered by systems that incorporate software. Additional information about System
Security can be found in the Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes Part.
11. Software growth requires spare capacity - Moore’s Law no longer fully comes to the rescue (Moore, 1965).
As systems adapt to changing circumstances, the modifications can most easily be performed and upgraded in the
software, requiring additional computer execution cycles and memory capacity (Belady and Lehman 1979). For
several decades, this growth was accommodated by Moore’s Law, but recent limits that have occurred as a result
of heat dissipation have influenced manufacturers to promote potential computing power growth by slowing down
the processors and putting more of them on a chip. This requires software developers to revise their programs to
perform more in parallel, which is often an extremely difficult problem (Patterson 2010). This problem is
exacerbated by the growth in mobile computing and limited battery power.
12. Several Pareto 80-20 distributions apply to software - These refers to the 80% of the avoidable rework that
comes from 20% of the defects, that 80% of the defects come from 20% of the modules, and 90% of the
downtime comes from at most 10% of the defects (Boehm and Basili 2001). These, along with recent data
indicating that 80% of the testing business value comes from 20% of the test cases (Bullock 2000), indicate that
much more cost-effective software development and testing can come from determining which 20% need the
most attention.
13. Software estimates are often inaccurate - There are several reasons software estimates are frequently
inaccurate. Some of these reasons are the same as the reasons systems engineering estimates are often inaccurate:
unrealistic assumptions, vague and changing requirements, and failure to update estimates as conditions change.
In addition, software estimates are often inaccurate because productivity and quality are highly variable among
seemingly similar software engineers. Knowing the performance characteristics of the individuals who will be
involved in a software project can greatly increase the accuracy of a software estimate. Another factor is the
cohesion of the software development team. Working with a team that has worked together before and knowing
their collective performance characteristics can also increase the accuracy of a software estimate. Conversely,
preparing an estimate for unknown teams and their members can result in a very low degree of accuracy. Chapter
7 of the SWEBOK briefly discusses this further. Kitchenam (1997) discusses the organizational context of
uncertainty in estimates. Lederer and Prasad (1995) also identify organizational and management issues that
increase uncertainty; additionally, a recent dissertation from Sweden by Magazinus (2012) shows that the issues
persist.
14. Most software projects are conducted iteratively - "Iterative development" has a different connotation for
systems engineers and software engineers. A fundamental aspect of iterative software development is that each
iteration of a software development cycle adds features and capabilities to produce a next working version of
partially completed software. In addition, each iteration cycle for software development may occur on a daily or
weekly basis, while (depending on the scale and complexity of the system) the nature of physical system
components typically involves iterative cycles of longer durations. Classic articles on this include (Royce 1970)
and (Boehm 1988), among others. Larman and Basili (2003) provide a history of iterative development, and the
SWEBOK discusses this in life cycle processes in Chapter 8.
15. Teamwork within software projects is closely coordinated - The nature of software and its development
requires close coordination of work activities that are predominately intellectual in nature. Certainly, other
engineers engage in intellectual problem solving, but the collective and ongoing daily problem solving required of
a software team requires a level of communication and coordination among software developers that is of a
different, more elevated type. Highsmith (2000) gives a good overview.
16. Agile development processes are increasingly used to develop software - Agile development of software is a
widely used and growing approach to developing software. Agile teams are typically small and closely
coordinated, for the reasons cited above. Multiple agile teams may be used on large software projects, although
this is highly risky without an integrating architecture (Elssamadisy and Schalliol 2002). Agile development
proceeds iteratively in cycles that produce incremental versions of software, with cycle durations that vary from
one day to one month, although shorter durations are more common. Among the many factors that distinguish
agile development is the tendency to evolve the detailed requirements iteratively. Most agile approaches do not
produce an explicit design document. Martin (2003) gives a highly cited overview.
17. Verification and validation (V&V) of software should preferably proceed incrementally and iteratively -
Iterative development of working product increments allows incremental verification, which ensures that the
partial software product satisfies the technical requirements for that incremental version; additionally, it allows
for the incremental validation (ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765) of the partial product to make certain that it satisfies its
intended use, by its intended users, in its intended environment. Incremental verification and validation of
working software allows early detection and correction of encountered problems. Waiting to perform integration,
verification, and validation of complex systems until later life cycle stages, when these activities are on the
critical path to product release, can result in increased cost and schedule impacts. Typically, schedules have
minimal slack time during later stages in projects. However, with iterative V&V, software configuration
management processes and associated traceability aspects may become complex and require special care to avoid
further problems. Chapter 4 of the SWEBOK discusses software testing, and provides numerous references,
including standards. Much has been written on the subject; a representative article is (Wallace and Fujii 1989).
18. Performance trade-offs are different for software than systems - Systems engineers use “performance” to
denote the entire operational envelope of a system; whereas software engineers use “performance” to mean
response time and the throughput of software. Consequentially, systems engineers have a larger design space in
which to conduct trade studies. In software, performance is typically enhanced by reducing other attributes, such
as security or ease of modification. Conversely, enhancing attributes such as security and ease of modification
typically impacts performance of software (response time and throughput) in a negative manner.
19. Risk management for software projects differs in kind from risk management for projects that develop
physical artifacts - Risk management for development of hardware components is often concerned with issues
such as supply chain management, material science, and manufacturability. Software and hardware share some
similar risk factors: uncertainty in requirements, schedule constraints, infrastructure support, and resource
availability. In addition, risk management in software engineering often focuses on issues that result from
communication problems and coordination difficulties within software development teams, across software
development teams, and between software developers and other project members (e.g., hardware developers,
technical writers, and those who perform independent verification and validation). See (Boehm 1991) for a
foundational article on the matter.
20. Software metrics include product measures and process measures - The metrics used to measure and report
progress of software projects include product measures and process (ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765) measures. Product
measures include the amount of software developed (progress), defects discovered (quality), avoidable rework
(defect correction), and budgeted resources used (technical budget, memory and execution cycles consumed, etc.).
Process measures include the amount of effort expended (because of the people-intensive nature of software
development), productivity (software produced per unit of effort expended), production rate (software produced
per unit time), milestones achieved and missed (schedule progress), and budgeted resources used (financial
budget). Software metrics are often measured on each (or, periodically, some) of the iterations of a development
project that produces a next working version of the software. Chapter 8 and Chapter 7 of the SWEBOK address
this.
21. Progress on software projects is sometimes inadequately tracked - In some cases, progress on software
projects is not adequately tracked because relevant metrics are not collected and analyzed. A fundamental
problem is that accurate tracking of a software project depends on knowing how much software has been
developed that is suitable for delivery into the larger system or into a user environment. Evidence of progress in
the form of working software is one of the primary advantages of the iterative development of working software
increments.
References
Works Cited
Belady, L. and M. Lehman. 1979. "Characteristics of large systems." In P. Wegner (ed.), Research Directions in
Software Technology. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Boehm, B. 1991. "Software risk management: Principles and practices." IEEE Software. 8(1):32-41.
Boehm, B. and V. Basili. 2001. "Software defect reduction Top 10 List." Computer. 34(1):135-137.
Bullock, J. 2000. "Calculating the value of testing." Software Testing and Quality Engineering, May-June, 56-62.
DeMarco, T. and T. Lister. 1987. Peopleware: Predictive Projects and Teams. New York, NY, USA: Dorset House.
Elssamadisy, A. and G. Schalliol. 2002. "Recognizing and responding to 'bad smells' in extreme programming."
Proceedings, ICSE 2002, ACM-IEEE, 617-622.
Fairley, R.E. and M.J. Willshire. 2011. "Teaching software engineering to undergraduate systems engineering
students." Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and
Exposition. 26-29 June 2011. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kitchenham, B. 1997. "Estimates, uncertainty, and risk." IEEE Software. 14(3): 69-74.
Larman, C. and V.R. Basili. 2003. "Iterative and incremental developments: A brief history." Computer. 36(6):
47-56.
Lederer, A.L. and J. Prasad. 1995. "Causes of inaccurate software development cost estimates." Journal of Systems
and Software. 31(2):125-134.
Magazinius, A. 2012. Exploring Software Cost Estimation Inaccuracy. Doctoral Dissertation. Chalmers University
of Technology. Goteborg, SE.
Martin, R.C. 2002. Agile Software Development: Principles, Patterns and Practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA:
Prentice Hall.
Moore, G.E. 1965. "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits," Electronics Magazine, April 19, 4.
Patterson, D. 2010. "The trouble with multicore." IEEE Spectrum, July, 28-32, 52-53.
Royce, W.W. 1970. "Managing the development of large software systems." Proceedings of IEEE WESCON. August
1970.
Wallace, D.R. and R.U. Fujii. 1989. "Software verification and validation: An overview." IEEE Software.
6(3):10-17.
Zuse, Horst. 1991. Software complexity: Measures and methods. Hawthorne, NJ, USA: Walter de Gruyter and Co.
Primary References
Brooks, Fred 1995. The Mythical Man-Month, Anniversary Edition. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
PMI. 2013A. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge|(PMBOK® Guide). 5th ed. Newtown Square,
PMI 2013B. Software Extension to the PMBOK® Guide, Fifth Edition, Newtown Square, PA, USA: Project
Management Institute (PMI) and Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
Pyster, A., M. Ardis, D. Frailey, D. Olwell, A. Squires. 2010. "Global workforce development projects in software
engineering." Crosstalk - The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, Nov/Dec, 36-41. Available at: http:/ / www.
dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA535633 Accessed 02 Dec 2015.

Software Engineering Features - Models,

Methods, Tools, Standards, and Metrics
Lead Author: Tom Hilburn
In recent decades, software has become ubiquitous. Almost all modern engineered systems include significant
software subsystems; this includes systems in the transportation, finance, education, healthcare, legal, military, and
business sectors. Along with the increase in software utility, capability, cost, and size there has been a corresponding
growth in methods, models, tools, metrics and standards, which support software engineering.
Chapter 10 of the SWEBOK discusses modeling principles and types, and the methods and tools that are used to
develop, analyze, implement, and verify the models. The other SWEBOK chapters on the software development
phases (e.g., Software Design) discuss methods and tools specific to the phase. Table 1 identifies software
engineering features for different life-cycle phases. The table is not meant to be complete; it simply provides
examples. In Part 2 of the SEBoK there is a discussion of models and the following is one of the definitions offered:
“an abstraction of a system, aimed at understanding, communicating, explaining, or designing aspects of interest of
that system” (Dori 2002).
For the purposes of Table 1 the definition of a model is extended to some aspect of the software system or its
development. As an example, “Project Plan” is listed as a model in the Software Management area. The idea is that
the Project Plan provides a model of how the project is going to be carried out: the project team organization, the
process to be used, the work to be done, the project schedule, and the resources needed.
Table 1: SWE Features (SEBoK Original)
Life-Cycle Activity Models Methods & Tools Standards
Software Management • Life-Cycle Process Model • Effort, Schedule and Cost Estimation • [IEEE 828]
• Work Breakdown Structure • Risk Analysis • [IEEE 1058]
• Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO) • Data Collection • [IEEE 1540]
• Project Plan • Project Tracking • [IEEE 12207]
• Configuration Management (CM) Plan • CM Management
• Risk Management Plan • Iterative/Incremental Development
• Agile Development
Software Requirements • Functional Model • Requirements Elicitation • [IEEE 830]

• User Class Model • Prototyping • [IEEE 1012]
• Data Flow Diagram • Structural Analysis • [IEEE 12207]
• Object Model • Data-Oriented Analysis
• Formal Model • Object-Oriented Analysis
• User Stories • Object Modeling Language (OML)
• Formal Methods
• Requirements Specification
• Requirements Inspection
Software Design • Architectural Model • Structured Design • [IEEE 1012]

• Structure Diagram • Object-Oriented Design • [IEEE 1016]
• Object Diagram • OML • [IEEE 12207]
• Class Specification • Modular Design • [IEEE 42010]
• Data Model • Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
• Database Management System (DBMS)
• Design Review
• Refinement
Software Construction • Detail Design Document • Detailed Design • [IEEE 1008]

• Pseudocode • Functional Programming • [IEEE 1012]
• Flow Chart • Object-Oriented Programming • [IEEE 1016]
• Program Code • IDE • [IEEE 12207]
• Unit Test Plan • DBMS
• Integration Test Plan • Black Box/White Box Testing
• Basic Path Testing
• Unit Testing
• Code Review
• Proof of Correctness
• Software Reuse
• Integration
• Integration Testing
Software Testing • System Test Plan • Usability Testing • [IEEE 829]

• Reliability Model • System Testing • [IEEE 1012]
• Software Maintenance Process • Acceptance Testing • [IEEE 12207]
• Regression Testing
• Reliability Testing
• Non-Functional Software Testing
Software Maintenance • Software Maintenance Process • Automated Testing Tools • [IEEE 1219]
• Maintenance Change • [IEEE 12207]
• Impact Analysis • [IEEE 14764]
• Inventory Analysis
• Restructuring
• Reverse Engineering
• Re-engineering
Software Metric
A software metric is a quantitative measure of the degree a software system, component, or process possesses a
given attribute. Because of the abstract nature of software and special problems with software schedule, cost, and
quality, data collection and the derived metrics are an essential part of software engineering. This is evidenced by the
repeated reference to measurement and metrics in the SWEBOK. Table 2 describes software metrics that are
collected and used in different areas of software development. As in Table 1 the list is not meant to be complete, but
to illustrate the type and range of measures used in practice.
Table 2: Software Metrics * (SEBoK Original)
Category Metrics
Management Metrics • Size: Lines of Code (LOC*), Thousand Lines of Code (KLOC)
• Size: Function points, Feature Points
• Individual Effort: Hours
• Task Completion Time: Hours, Days, Weeks
• Project Effort: Person-Hours
• Project Duration: Months
• Schedule: Earned Value
• Risk Projection: Risk Description, Risk Likelihood, Risk Impact
Software Quality Metrics • Defect Density - Defects/KLOC (e.g., for system test)
• Defect Removal Rate – Defects Removed/Hour (for review and test)
• Test Coverage
• Failure Rate
Software Requirements Metrics • Change requests (received, open, and closed)

• Change request frequency
• Effort required to implement a requirement change
• Status of requirements traceability
• User stories in the backlog
Software Design Metrics • Cyclomatic Complexity

• Weighted Methods per Class
• Cohesion - Lack of Cohesion of Methods
• Coupling - Coupling Between Object Classes
• Inheritance - Depth of Inheritance Tree, Number of Children
Software Maintenance and Operation • Mean Time Between Changes (MTBC)

• Mean Time to Change (MTTC)
• System Reliability
• System Availability
• Total Hours of Downtime
*Note: Even though the LOC metric is widely used, using it comes with some problems and concerns: different
languages, styles, and standards can lead to different LOC counts for the same functionality; there are a variety of
ways to define and count LOC– source LOC, logical LOC, with or without comment lines, etc.; and automatic code
generation has reduced the effort required to produce LOC.
References
Works Cited
Dori, D. 2003. "Conceptual modeling and system architecting." Communications of the ACM, 46(10), pp. 62-65.
[IEEE 828] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Computer Configuration Management in Systems and
Software Engineering, IEEE Std 828- 2012, 20012.
[IEEE 829] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Software and System Test Documentation, IEEE Std 829-
2008, 2008.
[IEEE 830] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Recommended Practice for Software Requirements
Specifications, IEEE Std 830-1998, 1998.
[IEEE 1008] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Software Unit Testing, IEEE Std 1008-1987, 1987.
[IEEE 1012] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for System and Software Verification and Validation, IEEE Std
1012-2002, 2012.
[IEEE 1016] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Recommended Practice for Software Design Descriptions,
IEEE Std 1016-2002, 2002.
[IEEE 1058] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Software Project Plans, IEEE Std 1058-1998, 1998.
[IEEE 1219] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Software Maintenance, IEEE Std 1219-1998, 1998.
[IEEE 1540] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Risk Management, IEEE Std 1540-2001, 2001.
[IEEE 12207] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Systems and Software Engineering —Software Life Cycle
Processes, IEEE Std 12207-2008, 2008.
[IEEE 14764] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Software Engineering - Software Life Cycle Processes -
Maintenance. IEEE Std 14764-2006, 2006.
[IEEE 42010] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Systems and Software Engineering — Architecture
Description, IEEE Std 42010-2011, 2011.
Primary References
None.
Chidamber, S.R., C.F. Kemerer. 1994. “A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design”, IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering. Vol. 20, No. 6. June 1994.
Kan, Stephen H. 2003. Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering, 2nd edition. Reading, Massachusetts,
USA: Addison-Wesley.
Li, M. and Smidts, C. 2003. “A ranking of software engineering measures based on expert opinion.” IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering. September 2003.
McConnell, Steve. 2009. Code Complete, 2nd Ed. Microsoft Press.
Moore, James. 1997. Software Engineering Standards: A User's Road Map. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-IEEE
Computer Society Press.
Sommerville, I. 2010. Software Engineering. 9th Ed. Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley.

960

Mechanical Engineering
Systems Engineering and Mechanical

Engineering
Lead Authors: Leigh McCue and John Shortle, Contributing Author: Art Pyster
This treatment opens with a brief overview of subdisciplines of mechanical engineering. The interested reader
seeking a more thorough study on Mechanical Engineering (ME) is referred to Sagdeh and Worek (2017) and other
references identified below. As stated by Hibbeler (2015), “Mechanics is a branch of the physical sciences that is
concerned with the state of rest or motion of bodies that are subjected to the action of forces. In general, this subject
can be subdivided into three branches: rigid-body mechanics, deformable-body mechanics, and fluid mechanics.” It
is with those branches that this summary begins, before delving into thermodynamics, controls, and mechanical
engineering design and the relationship between SE and ME.
Rigid-Body Mechanics and Deformable Body Mechanics

Mechanical engineering and civil engineering structural analysis bear much in common, as both fundamentally seek
to create structures to satisfy a design need. While the bridge designer may prioritize material selections that hold up
under constant use and varying weather conditions, the race car designer may prioritize light weight while
maintaining crash worthiness. In the process of structural analysis, one applies Newton’s laws to analyze loads at
joints and calculates internal forces, shear, and moment on structural elements. By understanding the loads a joint or
structural element must withstand, one can select materials with appropriate properties to prevent failure. A
structural element that changes its shape under load is known as a deformable body, whereas a body for which the
distances between points on the body remain constant regardless of loading is known as a rigid body. The study of
static structures, solid mechanics, and materials are typically foundational in a mechanical engineering
undergraduate curriculum (e.g. (Hibbeler 2015), (Philpot and Thomas 2020), and (Callister and Rethwich 2019)).
Dynamics
A subset of mechanics is dynamics. Eloquently summarized by Greenwood (1965), “[t]he science of mechanics is
concerned with the study of the interactions of material bodies. Dynamics is that branch of mechanics which consists
of the study of the motions of interacting bodies and the description of these motions in terms of postulated laws.” In
static rigid-body mechanics, with structures that are not accelerating, we write Newton’s second law as ΣF=0. In
dynamics we utilize ΣF=ma and leverage conservation of energy and momentum in analyzing systems. Simple
dynamics problems typically involve the swinging of a pendulum or a spring-mass-damper system and evolve in
complexity to modern suspension systems, orbital dynamics, and the multi-body challenges one might see when
landing a rescue helicopter on the deck of a Coast Guard vessel.
Fluid Mechanics
Fluid mechanics includes experimental, computational, and analytical modeling of forces on a body moving in a
liquid. Models of fluid dynamics often utilize the Navier-Stokes equations [1], a collection of partial differential
equations arising from conservation of mass and momentum. For inviscid flows, the Navier-Stokes equations can be
simplified to the Euler equations [2]. The Euler equations can be further simplified to Bernoulli’s equation [3] in the
special case of steady, incompressible, irrotational flow along a streamline. Common dimensionless parameters to
characterize a flow include Reynolds number [4], Froude number, and Mach number. Reynolds number is a measure
of the inertial forces to viscous forces, Froude number [5] characterizes the ratio of inertial forces to gravitational
forces, and Mach number [6] provides a ratio of flow speed to the speed of sound. A comprehensive introductory text
on fluid mechanics is Batchelor (2000).
Thermodynamics
Mechanical engineering thermodynamics involves products where heat is a primary consideration in the generation
or transfer of energy – examples include engines, refrigeration systems, and nuclear reactors. At a broad level, the
study of thermodynamics is captured by the following laws:
• Zeroth law: “[W]hen two bodies are in thermal equilibrium with a third body, they are in thermal equilibrium with
one another.” (Moran and Shapiro 1998).
• First law: “[T]he value of the net work done by or on a closed system undergoing an adiabatic process between
two given states depends solely on the end states and not on the details of the adiabatic process.” (Moran and
Shapiro 1998). In short, energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
• Second law: “It is impossible for any system to operate in such a way that the sole result would be an energy
transfer by heat from a cooler to a hotter body.” (Moran and Shapiro 1998). Notably, the first and second laws
together are what render a perpetual motion machine physically impossible.
• Third law: “[T]he entropy of a pure crystalline substance is zero at the absolute zero of temperature...” (Moran and
Shapiro 1998).
Relating thermodynamics to the mechanics topics described above, in a comprehensive summary paper, Graham
Baker quotes Clifford Truesdell stating “As mechanics is the science of motions and forces, so thermodynamics is
the science of forces and entropy.” (Baker 2005).
Controls
Controls refers to "the process of causing a system variable to conform to some desired value, called a reference
value.” (Franklin et al. 1994) In application, this requires assimilating knowledge of the above disciplines to devise a
system to achieve a desired outcome; e.g. measuring room temperature and using that as feedback to control an
HVAC system, or measuring orientation and angular velocity to ideally time the firing of a spacecraft thruster to
achieve a target orbit.
Design
In design, one combines knowledge of these specific fields to develop products of need by a customer or society.
The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) definition of design is agnostic to engineering
discipline; specifically, they state “Engineering design is a process of devising a system, component, or process to
meet desired needs and specifications within constraints. It is an iterative, creative, decision-making process in
which the basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources into solutions.
Engineering design involves identifying opportunities, developing requirements, performing analysis and synthesis,
generating multiple solutions, evaluating solutions against requirements, considering risks, and making trade-offs,
for the purpose of obtaining a high-quality solution under the given circumstances." (ABET n.d.) In the design
process, mechanical engineers use their knowledge of these disciplines to address societal needs. Furthermore, a key
aspect of mechanical engineering design is the decision-making process. As such, decision theory is a key
component to the study of design. (Tebay et al. 1984). Approaches to mechanical engineering design vary from
waterfall (sequential) style to agile (parallel) methods, with waterfall methods more likely to be governed by a
design spiral leading to a single point design whereas agile methods are iterative. Set-based design has become
increasingly common in recent years, gaining benefit from increased flexibility by pursuing a broad design space,
eliminating options over time as data and validation of underlying assumptions warrant. (Scaled Agile n.d.)
Application to Related Subdisciplines

These fundamental knowledge areas provide core skills for deeper knowledge in numerous subdisciplines, often
taught as standalone multi-disciplinary fields. For example:
Aerospace Engineering
Aircraft and spacecraft require command of each of these core areas. For example fluid-dynamics permits
understanding the forces of lift and draft on a body. Thermodynamics allows modeling thermal effects on engines,
craft operating at high speeds, or subject to large thermal load fluctuations in space. Application of knowledge of
dynamics and control allows engineers to develop safe, operable vehicles with performance traits tailored to design
need. Expertise in mechanics and materials allows one to develop light weight structures. And ultimately, the design
process enables the development and refinement of prototype and production vehicles. Aircraft provide numerous
examples of the ties between mechanical engineering and systems engineering. For example, a Boeing 747 has
approximately 6 million parts, provided by over 550 suppliers (Boeing 2013), relying on supply chain management.
Furthermore, an airline fleet becomes a system of aircraft with the air traffic network constituting a system of
systems.
Naval Engineering
Naval engineers function in many ways as systems engineers. Recognizing, for example, the wide range of
engineering complexities involved in designing, building, and operating an aircraft carrier – from hull, mechanical,
and electrical system design, to hydrodynamics and maneuvering, to integrated warfare systems, to aircraft
operations, to hotel services for crew, the modern naval combatant is a highly complicated system of systems. A
representative reference is provided in Lamb (2003).
Codes and Standards

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has been involved in the development of codes and
standards for mechanical engineering systems since its first standard, “Code for the Conduct of Trials of Steam
Boilers” released in 1884. (ASME n.d.a) As a testament to the complexity of mechanical engineering systems, in the
present day, ASME standards are used in more than 100 countries and cover topics as diverse as elevators to nuclear
plants with guidance under development for additive manufacturing and robotics, amongst other fields. (ASME n.d.)
Relationship between Mechanical and Systems Engineering

ME emphasizes design, development, and research on dynamic systems, be it turbines, prosthetics, or autonomous
vehicles. Mechanical engineering products often form the building blocks for systems of systems; for example, a
materials scientist designs the fan blade that goes into another mechanical engineer’s turbine engine design which
resides on an aerospace engineer designed fighter jet, operating off an aircraft carrier designed by naval and systems
engineers. One of the best examples of the relationship between ME and SE is with regard to human systems
integration, in which multidisciplinary teams assess topics such as ergonomics, health, safety, user interface design,
and human performance in designing mechanical systems. Systems engineers often lead such assessments. A
comprehensive reference on human systems integration is Booher (2003).
Relatively junior mechanical engineers often focus heavily on the individual subdisciplines of ME, such as those
described earlier in this article. They might, for example, conduct a structural analysis of an individual physical
assembly. As mechanical engineers gain experience and take on more senior roles, they often become concerned
with the larger context in which mechanical components fit and hence take on many of the roles that systems
engineers perform but with a focus on the mechanical subsystems. This becomes quite evident when looking at
advertisements for senior mechanical engineers. For example, in a May 2022 listing of 20 senior mechanical
engineer positions on one online job site, responsibilities included such systems engineering activities as reviewing
mechanical documents for areas of conflict with all disciplines, resolving discrepancies between the employer and
customer requirements, working with external partners and projects to ensure interoperability of internal and external
components, driving internal development methodology, owning the full life cycle for parts, and managing the
quality of deliverables while coordinating with other project disciplines.
References
Works Cited
ABET. n.d. “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2020 – 2021,” Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology. Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at https:/ / www. abet. org/ accreditation/ accreditation-criteria/
criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2020-2021/.
ASME. n.d. “About ASME Standards and Certification”, Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at https:/ / www. asme.
org/codes-standards/about-standards.
ASME. n.d.a. “History of ASME Standards", American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Accessed May 9, 2022.
Available at https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/about-standards/history-of-asme-standards.
Baker, G. 2005. “Thermodynamics in solid mechanics: a commentary,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society A. Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2005.1669.
Batchelor, G.K. 2000. An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge University Press.
Boeing. 2013. “Boeing Celebrates Delivery of 50th 747-8”. Ma7 29, 2013. Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-05-29-Boeing-Celebrates-Delivery-of-50th-747-8.
Booher, H.R. (ed.). 2003. Handbook of Human Systems Integration, Hoboken:Wiley.
Callister Jr., W.D. and D.G. Rethwisch. 2015. Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering: An Integrated
Approach, 5th Edition, Hoboken: Wiley.
Franklin, G.F., J. D. Powell, and A. Emami-Naeini. 1994. Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems, 3rd Edition,
Addison Wesley.
Greenwood, D.T. 1965. Principles of Dynamics, Prentice Hall.
Hibbeler, R.C. 2015. Engineering Mechanics: Statics, 14th Edition, Pearson.
Lamb, T. (ed.) 2003. Ship Design and Construction, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Philpot, T.A. and J.S. Thomas. 2020. Mechanics of Materials: An Integrated Learning System, 5th Edition,
Hoboken: Wiley.
Moran, M.J. and H.N. Shapiro. 1998. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 3rd Edition, Hoboken: Wiley.
Sadegh, A. and W. Worek. 2017. Mark’s Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 12th Edition, McGraw Hill.
Scaled Agile. n.d. “Set-Based Design”. Accessed on May 9, 2022. Available at https:/ / www. scaledagileframework.
com/set-based-design/.
Tebay, R., J. Atherton, and S.H. Wearne. 1984. “Mechanical engineering design decisions: instances of practice
compared with theory,” Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Sage
Journals.
Primary References
Batchelor, G.K. 2000. An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge University Press.
Booher, H.R. (ed.). 2003. Handbook of Human Systems Integration, Hoboken:Wiley.
Callister Jr., W.D. and D.G. Rethwisch. 2015. Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering: An Integrated
Approach, 5th Edition, Hoboken: Wiley.
Franklin, G.F., J. D. Powell, and A. Emami-Naeini. 1994. Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems, 3rd Edition,
Addison Wesley.
Greenwood, Donald T. Principles of Dynamics, Prentice Hall, 1965.
Hibbeler, R.C. 2015. Engineering Mechanics: Statics, 14th Edition, Pearson.
Moran, M.J. and H.N. Shapiro. 1998. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 3rd Edition, Hoboken: Wiley.
Philpot, T.A. and J.S. Thomas. 2020. Mechanics of Materials: An Integrated Learning System, 5th Edition,
Hoboken: Wiley.
Sadegh, A. and W. Worek. 2017. Mark’s Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 12th Edition, McGraw Hill.
CFD. n.d. CFD Online Accessed on May 9, 2022. Available: https://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Main_Page

References
[1] https:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Navier–Stokes_equations
[2] https:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Euler_equations_(fluid_dynamics)
[3] https:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Bernoulli%27s_principle
[4] https:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Reynolds_number
[5] https:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Froude_number
[6] https:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Mach_number
965

Enterprise IT
Systems Engineering and Enterprise IT

Lead Authors: Chuck Walrad and Rich Hilliard
SE is integral to the effective functioning of Enterprise Information Technology (EIT) organizations, which are
devoted to the successful realization, use, and retirement of engineered systems that are largely based on information
technology. Effective means to develop, manage, and support EIT organizations are described in the Enterprise
Information Technology Body of Knowledge (EITBOK), which was jointly developed by the IEEE Computer
Society and ACM, and is maintained as a public wiki by the IEEE (IEEE/ACM n.d.). This article largely explains
EIT organizations through the lens of the EITBOK and how it relates to SE principles, practices, and activities as
described elsewhere in the SEBoK.
Enterprise IT Introduction
Systems Engineering is integral to the effective functioning of EIT organizations, whose work is devoted to the
successful realization, use, and retirement of engineered systems that are largely based on information technology.
Examples of EIT systems include enterprise resource planning, supply chain management and customer relationship
management systems, accounting, finance, inventory and order management, marketing, planning, purchasing, and
sales. In the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, EIT organizations became increasingly aware that the success rates
of IT projects were very low, and that their enterprise customers were increasingly unhappy with their EIT
investments. The Standish Group sought to understand what was going on. Their findings were presented in Standish
(1994). The Standish Group research shows a staggering 31.1% of projects were canceled before they ever got
completed. Further results indicated 52.7% of projects cost 189% of their original estimates. The cost of these
failures and overruns were just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The lost opportunity costs were not measurable but
could easily be in the trillions of dollars.
As a result, commercial IT organizations through the auspicious parallel emergence of the Total Quality
Management movement (ASQ n.d.) and the increasingly widespread development of application development
methodologies by IT management consulting firms, recognized the need for the principles of SE and cross-functional
teams (sometimes called Integrated Product Teams (IPTs)). It should be noted that there is considerable overlap
today between SE and Project Management (PM) (see Systems Engineering and Project Management). Note that the
following business management activities can be supported by Enterprise Systems Engineering (ESE) activities:
• mission and strategic planning
• business processes and information management
• performance management
• portfolio management
• resource allocation and budgeting
• program and project management
These same areas are often supported by Project Management Offices. However, since a key difference between PM
and SE is that the latter includes technical expertise in the product/system of concern, focus should be on SE and
IPTs.
With IPTs, each product is shepherded from concept through delivery and support to retirement by a cross-functional
team that includes representatives from each area of responsibility, such as customer requirements development,
design and development, test, configuration management, release engineering, delivery, and support.
As enterprises have come to depend more and more on technology to perform effectively, EIT organizations have
matured, often due to the influence of IT consulting firms that make it their business to keep abreast of best
practices.
EIT Concepts
Much of this section builds on concepts found in the EITBOK, the Guide to the Enterprise Information Technology
Body of Knowledge (IEEE/ACM n.d.), and on general SE concepts elsewhere in the SEBoK.
An enterprise may be viewed from various perspectives: such as a system or system of systems (SoS):
• system-like enterprise: enterprises, like other systems, may have a tight coupling, single-executive function;
• system of systems-like enterprise: may be a loosely coupled group of organizations with blurred boundaries and
(yet) with (some) shared outcomes.
The choice of perspective may vary with many factors: the enterprise itself, the mission or purpose, or the particular
engineering task at hand. The enterprise can be viewed as a system with inputs and outputs in relation to the outside
world, or as a system of systems interacting through its individual component inputs and outputs.
An enterprise usually involves one or more organizations but need not be identified with the organization. As the
scope of human and organizational participants of the enterprise widen, there may be no single point of control. For
example, an extended enterprise could include a company, its suppliers and its customers.
Whatever perspective is taken (system-like, SoS-like, other), there are common key ingredients of any enterprise:
capabilities, individual competencies, and the organizational design. Capabilities can be further categorized into
organizational, system, and operational. These capabilities determine what the enterprise is able to produce, which
may be external offerings or internal mechanisms. Operational capabilities create services and products which in turn
produce value as determined by stakeholders. The capabilities of an enterprise are realized through various enterprise
elements including hardware, software, personnel, facilities, data, materials, techniques, and even services which
include soft items such as processes, principles, policies, practices, organizations, doctrine, theories, and beliefs.
EIT capabilities exist through lifecycles spanning from creation through eventual replacement and disposal. System
Lifecycle Models aid in understanding, designing, planning and managing the capability of interest. As stated in the
EITBOK, “A life cycle for a system generally consists of a series of stages regulated by a set of management
decisions which confirm that the system is mature enough to leave one stage and enter another. Basic life cycle terms
and concepts are discussed in Systems Lifecycle Approaches. Some typical life cycles are discussed in System
Lifecycle Models.
A life cycle-based approach can be deployed across the several levels and used to manage evolution. These levels
are:
• the enterprise itself
• the processes and organizations constituting the enterprise
• the systems enabling the capabilities, services or products provided.
It is important to distinguish between product and project lifecycle models. A product’s life cycle extends from its
initial concept approval, through development and distribution, to its retirement. This is the cycle that is managed
within an Enterprise IT organization, since EIT must manage the hardware or software product from its introduction
(in the case of acquired capabilities) or from its concept approval and development (in the case of capabilities it
builds), through its deployment, maintenance and eventual retirement or withdrawal. Each of these stages is usually
managed as a project or a series of projects. However, most discussions of life cycles within software and systems
discussions focus on project life cycles. See, for example, the Software Extension to PMBOK Guide (PMI 2013).
System of Systems Context in EIT

The phrase “Enterprise IT” (EIT) is often used both to refer to the technology organization/business unit within the
enterprise and to the enterprise’s information technology systems. This can be confusing. Here EIT refers to
technology systems. When referring to the organization, “Enterprise IT organization” or EIT organization is used
instead.
Enterprise IT organizations are responsible for complex socio-technical systems. Socio-technical systems in a
business context (thus, EIT) contain technical elements (software, hardware, networks, storage, databases, etc.) but
they also contain essential human components and necessary business processes. As covered in Introduction to
Systems Engineering Fundamentals, they exist in an engineered System Context that is a set of system component
interrelationships within a real-world environment:
This includes where problems come from and how they are defined, how candidate solutions are identified and
selected, how to balance technology and human elements in the wider solution context, how to manage the complex
organizational systems needed to develop new solutions, and how developed solutions are used, sustained and
disposed of. SE should consider the full engineered system context so that the necessary understanding can be
reached and the right systems engineering decisions can be made.
Socio-technical systems also have the following key characteristics: Openness in that they strongly interact with their
environments, and unfinished in that they evolve over time. A complex of EIT systems is essential to the successful
functioning of the people in the enterprise. They rely on EIT’s technology for communication, paying employees,
people management, business measurement, and often for managing supply chains. Thus, “EIT needs to be viewed as
a strategic partner to all the other functions and business units within an enterprise. This means that the results
produced by EIT along with its effectiveness and efficiency are all critically important to the success of the
enterprise.” (IEEE/ACM n.d. (a))
To accomplish this mission, the EIT organization builds and acquires new systems or system components, integrates
them into the mega SoS, and maintains the integrity and interoperability of the individual components as well as the
integrity of the entire complex of systems. In addition, security and performance levels must be achieved,
benchmarked, and maintained or improved.
Major concerns of the EIT Organization

The EITBOK provides a good deal of information about major organizational concerns. Five of those concerns are
summarized here:
• Enterprise Architecture
• Strategy and Governance
• Change
• Interoperability of Component Systems
• Security of Systems and Data
Enterprise Architecture
The EITBOK defines Enterprise Archirecture (EA) as the practice of conducting enterprise analysis, design,
planning, and implementation using a holistic approach for the successful development and execution of strategy.
There are, in fact, many alternative definitions common in the community. See enterprise architecture for several of
them, including the one from the EITBOK. EA applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations
through the business, information, process, and technology changes necessary to execute their organization's
strategies. EA builds upon many of the concepts and practices of Systems Architecture and also software architecture
(Bourque & Fairley 2014).
This section will discuss EA from the perspective of key Principles of Systems Thinking, designated in this article
with bold italics. There are many commonalities in architecture whether one is architecting in systems, software or
the enterprise. This article highlights both commonalities and differences between Enterprise Architecture and
Systems Architecture. Architecture takes place at the juncture of design problems and their solutions. Design
problems rarely arrive fully formulated or “hatched” for the architect; much of the architecture effort is to analyze or
formulate the problems to be solved. Often this involves negotiation both within the enterprise and with outside
stakeholders. Possible solutions are limited by resources and schedule and therefore often must also be negotiated.
A dominant principle of EA is separation of concerns (SoC). This is due to the complexity of enterprises, with many
forces acting upon them; the many technologies and disciplines involved in their creation and day-to-day operations;
and due to the diversity of stakeholders involved in the enterprise (see EIT Roles below).
An application of SoC is the boundary principle which is crucial to separate what is “inside” the enterprise from
what is “outside”. While the former is often under the enterprise’s control, the latter is often beyond its control.
For some systems, determining the boundary is a key decision, subject to many possibilities and consequences. This
is perhaps less the case for enterprises whose bounds are determined by the extent of organizations, regulations,
supply chains or other criteria. Within an established boundary, the holism principle applies: to treat the enterprise as
a unified whole, and, in particular, with respect to the interaction of the enterprise with its environment—including
stakeholders, other enterprises and systems. From an EIT perspective, an enterprise is a system of systems. SoC
offers a way to focus on the constituent systems in terms of their interconnections to one another to form the
enterprise.
Another useful application of SoC is to apply the principle of views to depict the architecture of the enterprise in
different ways to address the diverse interests (i.e., concerns) of an enterprise’s various stakeholders. Each
architecture view presents a specific perspective on the enterprise. To be understandable to its audiences (those
various stakeholders), each view should follow the conventions of its architecture viewpoint (ISO/IEC/IEEE 2011).
Just as a map should have a legend, each view should have a documented viewpoint providing a prescribed set of
conventions for looking at the enterprise through the resulting view. A viewpoint definition serves as a contract
between the architect and stakeholders on how a selected set of concerns are to be addressed. Each viewpoint allows
the architect to consider the enterprise in terms of various kinds of elements and relations among them and to present
that view to those “concerned” stakeholders. Dominating concerns in enterprise architecture include interoperability,
quality of systems and services, operations, managing change, and alignment with the enterprise’s mission, market,
and technology. Via the principle of dualism, it is recognized that some viewpoints are paired, such as with
process/data duality. Another pervasive duality in the enterprise is of people/technology in terms of what capabilities
are automated and which are performed by people.
In support of EA, there are numerous enterprise architecture frameworks each providing a pre-defined, integrated set
of viewpoints to frame typical, recurring concerns (ISO/IEC/IEEE n.d.). The earliest recorded framework was
Hammer et al. (1986), developed in the mid-1980s in response to growing availability of distributed computing to
the enterprise (Rivera 2013). In the late 1980s, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
created its Enterprise Architecture Model as a guide for US federal departments to organize their IT offerings (Fong
and Goldfine 1989). NIST’s 5-layer model remains influential today. Despite never using the term “enterprise,”
Zachman’s information systems architecture has had a major influence on how subsequent frameworks have been
organized and depicted using grids or cubes. Later frameworks have evolved in response to emerging concepts, such
as the move from client-server to service-oriented applications, as in the OASIS SOA Reference Model and its
associated framework. The 1990s saw a proliferation of frameworks for defense enterprises including US DODAF,
UK MODAF, NATO’s NAF and their successors such as OMG’s UAF.
Yet another application of separation of concerns is distinguishing today’s needs versus facilitating future needs;
balancing stability/change and highlighting the temporal planning aspect of architecture of the enterprise. In concert
with applying SoC, the architect uses the principle of abstraction to “forget” some details of the subject and thus
focus on essentials. Just as SoC is a way of taking things apart, abstraction is a way of unifying or putting like things
together through generalization. These two principles are perhaps the most central to architecture. SoC and
abstraction work together: SoC picks out subjects and abstraction helps architects to focus upon the essentials of
each subject.
Returning to the boundary and holism principles, the enterprise architect applies these recursively. As architecting
proceeds, the internal details of the enterprise become known in terms of interaction among its parts and other
relations. Again, multiple views are used to factor specific relations into distinct views. Typical relations include
Causality, Dependency, Client-Server, and Input-Output.
There are a variety of ways to structure the enterprise based upon stakeholder needs, mission or charter, technologies
or capabilities already in place. Among these are structuring principles including:
• Modularity (separate and group capabilities into modules by commonalities)
• Network (modules are linked together)
• Encapsulation (separating architecture modules use from how they are implemented)
• Layer Hierarchy (separation through gradual refinement)
• Regularity (uniformity of interactions, of structure within layer, within network)
• Similarity/Difference (recognizing the limits of Regularity)
Strategy and Governance

EIT governance is the established process to define the strategy for the EIT organization and oversee its execution to
achieve enterprise goals. Strategic planning translates the larger enterprise’s goals into EIT goals and defines what
EIT must do to achieve them. The EIT governance effort should communicate EIT goals, how they support the
larger organization's goals, and drive change to achieve them while maintaining agreed upon levels of operation.
The systems thinking principle of parsimony applies here, too. For example, the simplest possible measurement and
reporting systems are most likely to be used and not corrupted. Similarly, the EIT organizational structure should be
straightforward and easy to traverse so that staff can communicate and problem-solve in teams. In governing the EIT
organization to meet its dual goals of satisfying its customers and meeting its budget and schedule commitments,
EIT management encounters the difficulty of managing in the face of dualism. The most obvious instance of
handling dualism in EIT is the trade-off between budget, project prioritization, and features within projects.
Change
There are two levels of change management discussed in the EITBOK: organizational change management and
changes to the IT organization’s assets, whether they be software, hardware, or telecommunications systems. In the
larger sense, the introduction of new systems and services often also requires changes in people’s jobs and in the
processes used to accomplish those jobs. Such efforts are intended to increase business value. Such changes require
change initiatives because they involve guiding a mixture of stakeholders through the change process. This is one
aspect of change management. Change also occurs when existing systems or services must be updated to meet new
needs. Depending on the scope of the proposed changes, a change initiative may be required in this situation, too. At
any rate, a change request process must be initiated and tracked to disposition (deferral, rejection, or
implementation). Changes also come about as a result of defect reports. In such cases, the defect report must be
tracked throughout the report’s life cycle, to disposition (deferral, rejection, or implementation). These latter types of
change management are discussed in detail in the EITBOK.
Interoperability of Component Systems

As explained in the EITBOK, interoperability means “the ability of systems (including organizations) to exchange
and use exchanged information without knowledge of the characteristics or inner workings of the collaborating
systems (or organizations).” This definition is based on an ISO definition: “degree to which two or more systems,
products, or components can exchange information and use the information that has been exchanged.” (ISO/IEC
2011) Note that this definition includes hardware components as well as software systems and the organizations in
which they are used.
Because technology changes so rapidly, and organizations themselves are frequently changing, achieving and
maintaining interoperability is crucial. It is one of the main reasons that providing IT services is difficult and how it
differs from engineering and delivering finished products, whether off-the-shelf products or bespoke systems.
Security of Systems and Data

According to former FBI Director Robert Mueller in 2012, "There are only two types of companies: those that have
been hacked, and those that will be." Two years later, his successor, James Comey said "There are two kinds of big
companies in the United States. There are those who've been hacked by the Chinese and those who don't know that
they've been hacked by the Chinese." Achieving and maintaining acceptable security is daunting but necessary.
While there are many definitions for security, most include the three dimensions of confidentiality, integrity, and
availability. As such, the primary goal of EIT security is to preserve the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of
information and information systems.
The principles behind an organization’s information security management system should be to design, implement,
and maintain a coherent set of policies, processes, and systems that keep the risks associated with its information
assets at a tolerable level, and yet, manage the cost and inconvenience of said risk management. As such, according
to the EITBOK, EIT security practices should strive to enable the organization to:
• Always understand the current risk tolerance of the enterprise with respect to information and device security.
• Understand the security threats and potential damages to information, devices, and individuals.
• Create and follow policies and procedures that keep cyberattack risk and damages at or below a tolerable level.
• Effectively and efficiently detect and deal with cyberattack incidents.
Ensuring security in EIT has been made even more pressing and more difficult by the proliferation of mobile devices
in enterprises and their ever-increasing use to conduct business. Increasingly, personal devices are used, accessing
both corporate networks and public networks. The cost of mobile security incidents very easily can outweigh the cost
of the mobile device itself.
Quality of Systems and Services

Typically, one of the primary responsibilities of the EIT organization is the timely provision of accurate and relevant
information to the larger organization. While the EIT organization itself may not be responsible for creating the data,
it is usually responsible for the data's physical and logical validity and integrity central to constructing information. It
is for this reason that defining and using appropriate processes is essential to ensure high-quality operation, including
the development or acquisition, implementation and integration of new or changed capabilities.
The EITBOK details the quality concepts of:
• How to approach measuring quality
• The importance of quality in requirements management
• Understanding an organization’s quality capability
• The differences between quality management systems, quality control, and quality assurance
• Cost of quality in technical debt and the cost of rework
Disaster Preparedness
As explained in the EITBOK, disaster preparedness and disaster recovery support business-continuity planning and
include planning for EIT resiliency, as well as recovery from adversity, so that critical business services affected are
restored to a satisfactory working state within an acceptable timeframe after an event. The EITBoK devotes a chapter
to how the EIT organization and its parent must plan in advance for how it will provide sufficient organizational
resilience to recover from disasters and return to normal operation as rapidly as possible. It provides the following
examples of disasters and service interruptions that could occur and should be considered in prevention and recovery
planning:
• Natural disaster affecting datacenters or EIT service operations (flood, fire, earthquake, wind)
• Security breach resulting in a disaster (destruction of data, admin password changes, virus/malware installation,
sabotage)
• Usage error (accidental deletion, unplug/turn off system resulting in corruption)
• Utility failure affecting datacenters (loss of power even after UPS)
• Vendor failure (cloud provider security failure, oil spill)
• Staffing issue (employment dispute/walkout, epidemic)
These are examples of unpreparedness:
• Requiring use of computers or printers when power is out
• Requiring use of Internet when power or connectivity is out
• Single point of knowledge/control for administration access
• Lack of offsite backup storage
• Lack of working restoration from backups
• Lack of failover datacenters in separate locations
• Undocumented or out-of-date documentation for system interfaces
• Requiring use of phones that are out of power
• Lack of designation of leaders in restoration efforts (who is in charge of restoring service and they know they are
in charge)
• In general, no cohesive, comprehensive EIT service restoration plan
Operations and Support of Delivered Systems and Services

Operations engineering is responsible for the operation of the system. SE is responsible for bringing together the
needed experts to insure proper evaluation of proposed changes/upgrades to the system capabilities. It is difficult in
some organizational structures to understand how to access requisite information quickly, and what information to
share and how to share it. Decisions often must be made quickly, such as when a system is down. Decision
effectiveness depends on involving the right decision-makers with a sufficiently complete understanding of the
decision context and of criticality of the decision need.
In Operations and Support of deployed technologies, SE is still essential as the overall system of systems goes
through maintenance upgrades, new application additions, obsolescence driven re-designs, etc. In addition, during
decommissioning and disposal, SE is essential to deal with the proper decoupling of the system and ensuring
conformance with policy and laws affecting the system disposal.
Operations and support activities focus on maintaining a normal state of operations in EIT environments, where
systems and processes execute according to expectations, with no surprises to users. Normal states can be disrupted
either by the expected and planned transition of an asset, or by an unexpected event, be it as large as a disaster or by
the discovery of a system defect. In the former case, if there is a disaster recovery plan, it is executed; in the latter,
incident management kicks in when a system halts, or problem management is exercised when an operational system
is not functioning as expected.
ISO/IEC/IEEE 20000, the International Standard for Service Management (ISO/IEC 2018) may be used by an
organization to develop and manage EIT operations, along with complementary information for the operations and
infrastructure side of IT, such as the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) (Axelos n.d.).
Ethics
Both the IEEE and ACM require their members to adhere to codes of ethics. (IEEE 2020, ACM 2018) In addition,
the IEEE Computer Society and the ACM worked together on the Software Engineering Code of Ethics.
(ACM/IEEE 1997)) Systems engineers in INCOSE have their own code as well. (INCOSE n.d.) All of these codes of
ethics are somewhat different in style and length, but serve the same basic purpose.
Per the EITBOK, an EIT organization should create an easily accessible Code of Ethics:
• Ethical assertions should be documented and socialized in EIT in the form of a Code of Ethics, tied to the overall
business code of ethics, and signed off by all staff so that violations can be cause for reprimand or dismissal.
• Vendors should be held to similar ethical standards.
• Lists of employees who have signed off on the Code of Ethics should be maintained through EIT governance
practices.
The EITBOK has identified EIT ethical topics that include:
• Those actions and decisions that may be illegal
• Consideration of the social impact of the work at hand—if it will cause harm
• Alignment of business and EIT strategies and policies to an ethical standard
• Incorporation of the ideals of professionalism
• Adherence to applicable regulatory intent
• Protection for whistle blowers
Areas to specifically highlight:
• Activities that interfere with or corrupt the proper function of computers, applications and systems
• Activities that interfere with digital privacy or intellectual rights of others
• Respect for confidentiality, privacy, permissions, and access rights
• Inappropriate bias (skewing) of analysis and reporting
• Inaction in the face of likely ethics violations
EIT Roles
Major EIT systems have been disrupted and taken far too long to remedy due to the lack of information flow through
the organization. Particularly for large systems, support activities are highly diverse in the roles people play, the
technical knowledge required to build and install systems, to deal with downed systems, and in the organizational
structure and culture in which people operate.
The roles range across the business functions requesting and supported by Enterprise technology, the evaluators,
designers and implementers of those technologies, those who manage the successful transition of new systems into
operation and manage and run the technology systems, to those who manage the quality of systems and services via
defect reporting and tracking and who interface directly with end users.
Later sections will provide information about some major international models for defining EIT skills and
capabilities.Accomplishing the EIT organization’s mission requires people filling many roles ranging from enterprise
architect, configuration manager, product designer, financial manager, and product manager. SE activities
orchestrate the work of these roles so that they function together, rather than in silos or at cross purposes. Just as a
systems engineer can play several roles in a given project, so might several people in an EIT project combine to
fulfill the SE function. Larger EIT organizations may have many people performing SE functions and SE may be
integrated into the EIT organization in many different ways depending on size, culture, organizational mission, and
any number of other factors. Part 5 of the SEBoK on Enabling Systems Engineering explores how systems
engineering is woven into various organizations including EIT organizations.
Examples of Systems Engineering in EIT

SE provides a holistic discipline for integrating and managing the contributions of all roles needed to establish and
provide EIT products and services. For her doctoral dissertation, Diane Aloisio from Purdue University performed a
survey and causal analysis of project failures and of accidents. Aspects of the dissertation were published as a
conference paper in Aloisio et al. (2018). The results were similar to those found in reviews of IBM consulting
projects in the 1990s.
The following are examples of Systems Engineering interventions that prevented project failures in EIT systems.
Almost all point to the lack of the System Engineering balancing act needed for product delivery.
• A widely used document processing product was undergoing a major upgrade. The new VP of Engineering
wanted a project review before committing to a schedule. The review showed that the proposed schedule only
considered the development effort and did not give sufficient weight to the voices of the testing and
documentation organizations, while the needs of the tech support group had been completely overlooked. By
establishing an integrated product management team that included technical expertise, as well as expertise in
work breakdown and estimating, a realistic effort was defined and the resulting 9-month schedule was met within
3 weeks.
• A Silicon Valley start-up was depending entirely on an offshore development effort to produce its first product.
All senior management was in the U.S. The VP of engineering made monthly visits to the development team. The
CEO began to feel uneasy about the team’s ability to deliver on schedule sensing that a lot of finger pointing
within the development team itself signaled problems. There was no SE or IPT guiding the project. The VP of
Engineering seemed unable to sort things out. A project review showed that the probable delivery date was at
least 6 months beyond what the CEO was being told. The project was shut down.
• A major player in Human Resource Management had made commitments to deliver a new product. The project
involved more than 100 people across the U.S. The delivery date kept slipping. Project roll-out would involve
both installation of software and hardware at client sites, as well as installation and staff training at the large,
centrally located Client Services organization. Executive Management needed to decide whether to reorganize
this very expensive effort or cancel it. Again, the successful solution depended on establishing an effective
cross-functional team (IPT) that necessarily included representatives from the technical teams. The IPT was
supported by a newly established Project Management Office (PMO). The PMO integrated the geographically
disparate efforts by establishing communication channels, as well as common estimating and scheduling
practices. The PMO also instituted monthly critical metrics reports to show the IPT bottlenecks and inefficiencies
across the project, from development efforts to Client Services set-up to Payroll technical support.
Systems Engineering provides a holistic discipline for integrating and managing the contributions of all of the roles
needed to provide EIT products and services. It ensures that a single perspective does not dominate outcomes.
Key External Models of EIT Organizational Capability and Maturity

Because EIT is critical to businesses globally, considerable effort has gone into establishing universal frameworks
for EIT skills, along with definitions of levels of capability of each skill. In addition, at least 2 models have been
developed for evaluating the organizational performance of EIT. The effectiveness of systems engineering is key to
the effectiveness of the EIT organization.
IT-CMF: IT-Capability Maturity Framework

The IT-CMF had its origin in a quality improvement effort at Intel Labs Europe in Ireland. Its intent, as described at
the CIO Index website was to quantify and demonstrate the true value impact of IT. (CIO Index n.d.) IT-CMF is
used to measure, develop, and monitor an organization’s EIT capability maturity. It consists of 35 EIT management
capabilities organized into four macro capabilities: managing EIT like a business; managing the EIT budget;
managing the EIT capability; and managing EIT for business value. Its 35 critical capabilities are described in the
EITBOK as “A defined EIT management domain that helps mobilize and deploy EIT-based resources to effect a
desired end, often in combination with other resources and capabilities”.
CMMI: Capability Maturity Model Integration (US)

The CMMI had its origin at the Software Engineering Institute in 1987 in a model requested by the U.S. Department
of Defense for determining the capability maturity of contractor software development organizations. This became
the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). Since then, it has been expanded into a set of Capability Maturity Models,
all based on five levels of demonstrably increasing maturity as measured by organization performance. That set was
then integrated and became the CMMI. The CMMI set addresses development, services, supplier management,
people management, and data management. (CMMI Institute. n.d.)
SFIA: Skills Framework for the information Age (Europe, Canada and US)
The SFIA Framework has been downloaded and used by organizations and individuals in nearly 180 countries and is
overseen by the SFIA Foundation (SFIA n.d.) It identifies 97 professional skills across EIT and supporting areas
with seven levels of responsibility, which provide generic levels of responsibility, taking into account reflect
experience and competency. These describe the behaviors, values, knowledge, and characteristics that an individual
should have in order to be considered competent at a particular level.
E-CF: European Competency Framework (EU)

The ECF was the first sector-specific implementation of the European Qualifications Framework. The European
Norm (EN) 16234-1 European e-Competence Framework (e-CF) provides a reference of 41 competences as applied
at the Information and Communication Technology workplace, using a common European reference for
competences, skills, knowledge and proficiency levels. The e-CF Explorer web tool is hosted by IT Professionalism
Europe (ITPE n.d.).
I Competency Dictionary: EIT skills as Defined by METI/ IPA (Japan)

The Japanese government’s Information-Technology Promotion Agency (IPA), established by the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) developed the ”I Competency Dictionary” (iCD) to support the IT Engineers
Examination. It underlies the METI/IPA Skills Standards for IT Professionals, abbreviated as ITSS, established in
2002. ITSS organizes skills within the information services industry into 11 job categories and 35 specialty fields. In
each field, there are seven levels of competence based on individual experience and ability to perform. One
appealing feature of ITSS is that this standard allows engineers to draw roadmaps for their own futures and career
advancement. Approximately 90% of large enterprises and over 60% of SMEs in Japan have introduced or are
considering using ITSS. Information in English is available at https://www.ipa.go.jp/en/index.html.
International Standards Guiding EIT

The following standards guide the EIT community:
• ANSI/AIAA. 2012. ANSI/AIAA Guide to the Preparation of Operational Concept Documents. ANSI/AIAA
G-043A-2012e
• IEEE 2012 Std 828™-2012, IEEE Standard for Configuration Management in Systems and Software Engineering
• ISO 10004:2012, Quality management—Customer satisfaction—Guidelines for monitoring and measuring
• ISO 10007:2003, Quality management systems—Guidelines for configuration management
• ISO 18238:2015, Space systems—Closed loop problem solving management
• ISO/IEC 25010:2011 Systems and software engineering—Systems and software Quality Requirements and
Evaluation (SQuaRE)—System and software quality models
• ISO/IEC 16350:2015, Information technology—Systems and software engineering—Application management
• ISO/IEC 19770-1:2012, Information technology—Software asset management—Part 1: Processes and tiered
assessment of conformance
• ISO/IEC 20000-1:2011, (IEEE Std 20000-1:2013) Information technology—Service management—Part 1:
Service management system requirements
• ISO/IEC 20000–2:2012, Information technology—Service management—Part 2: Guidance on the application of
service management systems
• ISO/IEC TR 20000–10:2015, Information technology—Service management—Part 10: Concepts and
terminology
• ISO/IEC TR 20000–11:2015, Information technology—Service management—Part 11: Guidance on the
relationship between ISO/IEC 20000-1:2011 and related frameworks: ITIL®
• ISO/IEC TR 20000-12—Information technology—IT Service management—Part 12: Guidance on the
relationship between ISO/IEC 20000-1:2011 and service management frameworks: CMMI-SVC®
• ISO/IEC/IEEE 14764-2006, Software Engineering—Software Lifecycle Processes—Maintenance
• ISO/IEC 15939:2007, Systems and software engineering—Measurement process
• ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description
References
Works Cited
ACM. 2018. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Accessed on May 7, 2023. Available at https:/ / www.
acm.org/code-of-ethics.
ACM/IEEE. 1997. ACM/IEEE Computer Society. Software Engineering Code. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at
https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-code/.
Alioso, D.C., Marais, K., Sun, Hanxi. 2019. "2018 Best PIC II Paper: Systems Engineering Division: Development
of a Survey Instrument to Evaluate Student Systems Engineering Ability", in 126th ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition. Tampa, Florida.
ASQ. n.d. "What is Total Quality Management". American Society for Quality. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at:
https://asq.org/quality-resources/total-quality-management.
Axelos. n.d. "Axelos products and services for professionals". Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https:/ / www.
axelos.com/for-professionals.
Bourke, P. and Fairley, R.E. eds. 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge, Version 3.0, IEEE
Computer Society. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at : www.swebok.org.
CIO Index. n.d. "IT Capability Maturity Framework". CIO Index. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https:/ /
cio-wiki.org/wiki/IT_Capability_Maturity_Framework_(IT-CMF).
CMMI Institute. n.d. "CMMI". CMMI Institute. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https:/ / cmmiinstitute. com/
cmmi.
Fong, E.N. and A.H. Goldfine. 1989. Information Management Directions: The Integration Challenge. National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 500-167, September 1989. Accessed May 7, 2023.
Available at https://csrc.nist.rip/library/NIST%20SP%20500-167.pdf.
Hammer, M., T.H. Davenport and J. Champy. 1986. Dispersion and Interconnection: Approaches to Distributed
Systems Architecture, Cambridge, MA: CSC Index Inc. and Hammer and Company, Inc. Accessed May 7, 2023.
Available at https://www.globalaea.org/general/custom.asp?page=Resources.
Hilliard, R. 2015. “Lessons from the fundamental unity of architecting”. Software Engineering in the Systems
Context, editors: Ivar Jacobson and Harold 'Bud' Lawson.
Hofmeister, C. et al. 2007. “A general model of software architecture design derived from five industrial
approaches”. The Journal of Systems and Software, 80(1).
IEEE. 2020. IEEE Code of Ethics. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. ieee. org/ about/ corporate/
governance/p7-8.html.
IEEE/ACM n.d. Guide to the Enterprise IT Body of Knowledge. IEEE and ACM. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available
at: http://eitbokwiki.org.
INCOSE. n.d. INCOSE Code of Ethics. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. incose. org/
about-incose/Leadership-Organization/code-of-ethics.
ISO/IEC. 2018. ISO 20000: The International Standard for Service Management. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available
at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:20000:-1:ed-3:v1:en.
ISO/IEC. 2011. ISO/IEC 25010:2011 Systems and software engineering—Systems and software Quality
Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—System and software quality models. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at
https://www.iso.org/standard/35733.html.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. n.d. Survey of Architecture Frameworks . ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 Users Group. Accessed May 7,
2023. Available at http://www.iso-architecture.org/42010/afs/.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description.
Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/50508.html.
ITPE. n.d. "e-CF Explorer". IT Professional Europe. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https:/ / ecfexplorer.
itprofessionalism.org/.
PMI. 2013. Software Extension to PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition. Newtown Square, PA, USA: Project
Management Institute (PMI). Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. pmi. org/ pmbok-guide-standards/
foundational/pmbok/software-extension-5th-edition.
Rivera, R. 2013. “The PRISM Architecture Framework – Was it the Very First Enterprise Architecture Framework?”
Journal of Enterprise Architecture, November 2013.
SFIA. n.d. "SFIA: The Global Skills and Competency Framework for the Digital World". Accessed May 7, 2023.
Available at https://sfia-online.org/en.
Standish Group. 1994. The Chaos Report. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. standishgroup. com/
sample_research_files/chaos_report_1994.pdf.
Zachman, J. 1987. “A Framework for Information Systems Architecture”. IBM Systems Journal, pp454-470, 1987.
Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at https://www.zachman.com/images/ZI_PIcs/ibmsj2603e.pdf.
Primary Reference
IEEE Computer Society. Enterprise IT Body of Knowledge. Accessed May 7, 2023. Available at http:/ / eitbokwiki.
org.
Aloisio, D.C. 2018. Lessons from Systems Engineering Failures: Determining Why Systems Fail, The State of
Systems Engineering Education, and Building an Evidence-Based Network to Help Systems Engineers Identify and
Fix Problems on Complex Projects. PhD Dissertation, Purdue University. Accessed on May 7, 2023. Available at
https:/ / hammer. purdue. edu/ articles/ thesis/
Lessons_from_Systems_Engineering_Failures_Determining_Why_Systems_Fail_the_State_of_Systems_Engineering_Education_an
7488569.
Curley, M., Kenneally, J., Carry, M. eds. 2015. IT Capability Maturity Framework (IT-CMF): The Body of
Knowledge Guide. 2015. Van Haren Publishing.

978

Quality Attributes
Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes

Lead Authors: Art Pyster and Dave Olwell Contributing Authors: Richard Turner, Dick Fairley, Scott Jackson,
Alice Squires
Every system has a set of properties that are largely a function of the system as a whole rather than just its
constituent parts. There are dozens of these properties such as security, reliability, safety, resistance to
electromagnetic interference, usability, and resilience. This Knowledge Area (KA) describes many of the most
important such properties and how they are realized. The vocabulary to talk about these properties is not standard.
Alternatively, they are called quality attributes, non-functional requirements, -ilities, and specialties. In this KA, the
term specialty engineering refers to the collective engineering of all quality attributes of a system.
Quality attributes are often interdependent rather than orthogonal; e.g. making a system more secure may make it
harder to use but also safer. Increasing system reliability often requires using more expensive parts and adding
redundant components. Hence, higher reliability often means higher cost to deliver a system – another system
property. However, higher reliability might mean lower maintenance cost – another system property. A systems
engineer typically makes many decisions and takes many actions with regard to system properties; e.g. specifying
which properties are important for a particular system, stating how those properties will be measured, trading off
conflicting properties, and verifying that a system has the specified properties. Barry Boehm (2016), as the lead for a
project of the Systems Engineering Research Center [1], introduced an ontology to describe system quality attributes
as a way of enabling smarter tradeoffs between them and understanding the impact of those trades on cost. Also, see
the article on Quality Management for more information on how these decisions and actions are managed. de Weck,
et al. (2012) has a lengthy and insightful chapter on quality attributes (which they call -ilities).
Many consider specialty engineering to be a sub-discipline of SE itself; e.g. they consider security engineering,
safety engineering, resilience engineering, etc. to be part of SE. Others consider them to be stand-alone disciplines in
their own right with close ties to SE. Either way, their mastery is important to a system engineer. This KA includes
topical articles on several specialty engineering disciplines. Some articles will treat the topic of the article as a
sub-discipline of SE itself; others will treat it as a closely related but separate discipline. This disparity reflects both
the diversity of opinions on this matter and the fact that SEBoK articles are written by a wide array of authors.
Topics
theme. The KAs, in turn, are divided into topics. This KA contains articles on the following topics, shown in
alphabetical order:
• A Framework for Viewing Quality Attributes from the Lens of Loss
• Human Systems Integration
• Manufacturability and Producibility
• System Adaptability
• System Affordability
• System Hardware Assurance
• System Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability

• System Resilience
• System Resistance to Electromagnetic Interference
• System Safety
• System Security
Over time, this KA will expand to add topical articles about other quality attributes.
Specialty Requirements
The systems engineering team must ensure that requirements about quality attributes (also called specialty
requirements) are properly reviewed with regard to their impact on life cycle costs, development schedule, technical
performance, and operational utility. For example, security requirements can impact operator workstations,
electromagnetic interference requirements can impact the signal in the interfaces between subsystems, and
mass-volume requirements may preclude the use of certain materials to reduce subsystem weight.
Engineering specialists audit the evolving design and resulting configuration items to ensure that the overall system
performance also satisfies the specialty requirements. Including appropriate specialty engineers within each systems
engineering team ensures that all specialty requirements are identified and balanced throughout the development
cycle.
Integration of Specialty Engineering

Integration of specialty engineering into a project or program is, or should be, a major objective of systems
engineering management. (Endler 2016, Kossiakoff et al. 2020) With properly implemented procedures, the rigor of
the systems engineering process ensures participation of the specialty disciplines at key points in the technical
decision-making process. Special emphasis on integration is mandatory because a given design could in fact be
accomplished without consideration of these specialty disciplines, leading to the possibility of system ineffectiveness
or failure when an unexamined situation occurs in the operational environment.
For example, human factors considerations can contribute to reduced workloads and therefore lower error rates by
operators in aircraft cockpits, at air-traffic consoles, or in nuclear reactor stations. Similarly, mean-time-to-repair
features can significantly increase overall system availability in challenging physical environments, such as
mid-ocean or outer space or in safety critical environments such as hospital intensive care units or in traffic control
systems in city centers. Specialty engineering requirements are often manifest as constraints on the overall system
design space. The role of systems engineering is to balance these constraints with other functionality in order to
harmonize total system performance. The end goal is to produce a system that provides utility and effectiveness to
the customer at an affordable price.
As depicted in Figure 1, systems engineering plays a leadership role in integrating traditional disciplines, specialty
disciplines, and unique system product demands to define the system design. Relationships for this integration
process are represented as interactions among three filters.
The first filter is a conceptual analysis that leverages traditional design consideration (structural, electronics,
aerodynamics, mechanical, thermodynamics, etc.). The second filter evaluates the conceptual approach using
specialty disciplines, such as safety, affordability, quality assurance, human factors, reliability and maintainability,
producibility, packaging, test, logistics, and others, to further requirements development. Design alternatives that
pass through these two processes go through a third filter that incorporates facility design, equipment design,
procedural data, computer programs, and personnel to develop the final requirements for design selection and further
detailed development.
Figure 1. Integration Process for Specialty Engineering (USAF 2000). Released by the U.S. Air Force.
References
Works Cited
Boehm, B. 2016. System Qualities Ontology, Tradespace, and Affordability (SQOTA) Project - Phase 4. Systems
Engineering Research Center: Stevens Institute of Technology. February 2016. SERC-2016-TR-101. Accessed
March 3, 2021. Available at https:/ / www. archive. sercuarc. org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2014/ 05/
SERC-2016-TR-101-Phase-4_RT-137.pdf.
de Weck, R.D. and C. Magee. 2012. Engineering Systems: Meeting Human Needs in a Complex Technological
World. MIT Press. Chapter 4: "Life-Cycle Properties of Engineering Systems: The Ilities". Available at: https:/ /
www. amazon. com/ Engineering-Systems-Meeting-Complex-Technological/ dp/ 0262529947. Accessed May 21,
2023. Chapter 4 on the -ilities is also available at http:/ / strategic. mit. edu/ docs/ es_book_004_proof. pdf. Accessed
May 21, 2023.
Endler, D. 2016. "Integration of Specialty Engineering Activities." Proceedings of the 26th Annual International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, July 18-21, 2016, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Kossiakoff, A., W.N. Sweet, S.J. Seymour, and S.M. Biemerl. 2020. Systems Engineering Principles and Practice,
Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ, USA.
USAF. 2000. Guidelines for Successful Acquisition and Management of Software-Intensive Systems: Weapon
Systems Command and Control Systems Management Information Systems, version 3.0. Hill AFB: Department of the
Air Force Software Technology Support Center. May 2000. Accessed March 3, 2021. Available at https:/ /
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.1999.tb00315.x.
Primary References
USAF. 2000. Guidelines for Successful Acquisition and Management of Software-Intensive Systems: Weapon
Systems Command and Control Systems Management Information Systems, version 3.0. Hill AFB: Department of the
Air Force Software Technology Support Center. May 2000. Accessed March 3, 2021. Available at https:/ /
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.1999.tb00315.x.
None.

References
[1] https:/ / sercuarc. org
A Framework for Viewing Quality Attributes

from the Lens of Loss
Lead Author: John S. Brtis
Important but often under-considered areas of systems engineering address potential losses associated with the
development and use of systems. These areas fall under the umbrella category of loss-driven systems engineering
(LDSE), i.e., the value-adding unification of the systems engineering specialty areas that address the potential losses
associated with systems. LDSE can be defined as an overarching systems engineering process which holistically
addresses the quality characteristics concerned with loss (such as system resilience, system safety, and system
security).
Overview
Systems engineering methodologies often focus on the delivery of desired capability. Methodology sources such as
the Systems Engineering Handbook (Walden 2015) and ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (ISO) provide full lifecycle and fully
integrated methodologies that focus on the generation and deployment of a system to deliver capabilities. Those
methodologies are largely capability-driven and do not provide detailed fully integrated attention to potential loss.
Loss and loss-driven specialty areas are largely treated in isolation. Examples of loss-driven specialty areas include
resilience, safety, security, operational risk, environmental protection, quality, and availability. There is commonality
and synergy among these specialty areas, which should be addressed by systems engineering. Potential synergies
include:
• Shared loss scenarios
• Shared requirements
• Shared modeling and analysis techniques
• Shared architecture and design solutions
• Shared risk management
The expected benefits of applying a unified loss-driven viewpoint in the systems engineering processes include:
• Reducing engineering effort by eliminating redundant efforts among the specialty areas
• Helping to ensure a comprehensive consideration of loss
• Ensuring cohesion and elimination of conflicts among the loss-driven solutions

• Identifying highly effective solutions that address the interests of multiple loss-driven specialty areas
• Providing a holistic viewpoint addressing the multiple perspectives
• Reducing the load of data generated by multiple specialty areas to a minimal, non-redundant set
• Mutual learning among the loss-driven specialty areas
Background and Origins

Engineers at the MITRE Corporation explored the commonality of “protecting against loss” in the areas of security,
safety, and resilience as part of an effort to improve a sponsor’s systems engineering methodologies (Brtis 2020). In
parallel, these engineers raised and explored the issue with the INCOSE resilience and security working groups. This
led to the realization that these specialty areas had commonalities and synergies with many of the systems
engineering specialty areas. The term “loss-driven systems engineering” was coined to identify this area of common
interest. These concepts were discussed with the INCOSE Technical Operations Director at the 17th INCOSE
International Symposium, and he recommended that the concept be pursued as an INCOSE initiative. An exploratory
meeting on LDSE was held at the 18th INCOSE International Symposium. At that meeting participants agreed that
this concept should be pursued and decided that as a first step, a special theme issue on loss-driven systems
engineering of INCOSE Insight magazine should be pursued, to be followed by a section in the SEBoK. That issue
of Insight was published in December 2021.
The Basis of Commonality

Systems engineering must address all loss-driven specialty areas in a mutually supportive and optimized manner.
The exact definitions and demarcation between the different specialty areas are moot. What matters is meeting all the
objectives of the loss-driven areas. Loss-driven areas often have common objectives, common concepts and
principles, common requirements, common architectural solutions, common design solutions, common analyses, and
common methodologies. Engineers responsible for loss-driven areas can often do a better job if they work
collaboratively. This is because they are all interested in the same overarching concern: addressing potential losses
associated with the system of interest. An inspection of the Systems Engineering Handbook (Walden 2015)
identified specialty engineering areas that shared the concerns of loss-driven systems engineering. Those identified
include:
• availability
• environmental impact
• maintainability
• resilience engineering
• reliability
• risk management
• system safety engineering
• system security engineering
• quality management
Attributes Shared by the Loss-Driven Specialty Areas, a Potential for

Unification
The loss-driven specialty areas share attributes that specify the scope of each specialty area. All the loss-driven
specialty areas have as attributes:
• the types of assets considered
• the types of loss addressed
• the types of adversity addressed
• the coping strategies considered
• the aspects of the system and its environment under consideration
These attributes define the scope of each specialty area. These scopes differ among the loss-driven specialty areas,
but in many cases, they overlap. These loss-driven attributes and the possibility of aggregating their overall values
provide a basis for integrating the loss-driven specialty areas, by aggregating the range of values of the parameters
and then by addressing their aggregate scopes. Brtis (2020) considers each of these attributes. Figure 1 provides an
aggregate summary of the scope of considerations identified for loss-driven attributes. Properly engineering a system
requires consideration of the full range of each of the loss-driven attributes.
Figure 1: Attributes and Scope of the Integrated Loss-Driven Systems Engineering Problem Space
Core Principles for LDSE

Winstead (2020) investigated the commonality among principles being articulated for individual loss-driven
specialty areas. He identified fundamental principles that can be unified across the specialties.
• Candidate principle 1: Systems engineering minimizes hazards.
• Candidate principle 2: Systems engineering seeks to control hazards that cannot be avoided, including assuring
transitions from one known acceptable mode or state to another known and acceptable one.
• Candidate principle 3: Systems engineering uses proven and accepted processes, solutions, methods, materials,
etc. when the process, etc., achieves the intended trustworthiness.
• Candidate principle 4: The human within the system should be enabled to prevent, minimize, and recover from
loss when possible.
• Candidate principle 5: Systems engineering should strive for the simplest solutions.
• Candidate principle 6: Systems engineering produces evolvable systems likely to maintain or improve on
loss-driven properties through change.
• Candidate principle 7: Actions should trace to the entity responsible.
• Candidate principle 8: Any critical task should be possible to perform in more than one way.
Winstead (2020) also considered the systems engineering principles of Watson (2019) and discusses minimal
changes needed to make them well-suited for application to loss-driven systems engineering.
LDSE in the SE Activities

Brtis (2020) found that several the SE practices identified in ISO 15288 and the INCOSE SE Handbook need to be
augmented to adequately address the needs of LDSE and recommended specific additions for the following practice
areas:
• Business or Mission Analysis Process
• Stakeholder Needs and Requirements Definition Process
• System Requirements Definition Process
• Architecture Definition Process
• Design Definition Process
• Risk Management Process
LDSE Design Techniques

Winstead (2021) investigates what he calls “loss control” for cyber-physical systems. He investigates loss control
independent of any particular systems engineering specialty area. He recommends a set of loss control design
principles:
• Anomaly Detection - Any salient anomaly in the system or in its environment is detected in a timely manner that
enables effective response action.
• Commensurate Protection - The strength and type of protection provided to an element must be commensurate
with the most significant adverse effect that results from a failure of that element.
• Commensurate Response - The design should match the aggressiveness of an engineered response action’s effect
to the needed immediacy to control the effects of each loss scenario.
• Continuous Protection - The protection provided for an element must be effective and uninterrupted during the
time that the protection is required.
• Defense-in-depth - Loss is prevented or minimized by employing multiple coordinated techniques and strategies.
• Distributed Privilege - Multiple authorized entities must act in a coordinated manner before an operation on the
system is allowed to occur.
• Diversity (Dynamicity) - The design delivers the required capability through structural, behavioral, data, or
control flow variation.
• Domain Separation - Domains with distinctly different protection needs should be physically or logically
separated.
• Least Functionality - Each element should have the capability to accomplish its required functions, but no more.
• Least Persistence - System elements and other resources should be available, accessible, and able to fulfill their
design intent only for the time they are needed.
• Least Privilege - Each element should be allocated privileges that are necessary to accomplish its specified
functions, but no more.
• Least Sharing - System resources should be shared among system elements only when necessary, and among as
few system elements as possible.
• Loss Margins - The system is designed to operate in a state space sufficiently distanced below the threshold at
which loss occurs.
• Mediated Access - All access to and operations on system elements are mediated.
• Protective Defaults - The default configuration of the system provides maximum protection effectiveness.
• Protective Failure - A failure of a system element should neither result in an unacceptable loss, nor invoke
another loss scenario.
• Protective Recovery - The recovery of a system element should not result in, nor lead to, unacceptable loss.
• Redundancy - The design delivers the required capability by the replication of functions or elements.
Technical Management Considerations

The effective coordination and management of LDSE specialty areas – areas that have often operated independently
and in isolation of one another – poses a challenge. Jackson (2020) discusses the concept of siloism in the context of
LDSE projects and ways to mitigate that effect. Siloism is the unwillingness of members of any team to share
information. Failure to mitigate siloism can reduce the effectiveness of the entire team. Jackson recommends
mitigating siloism using integrated product teams (IPTs), which utilize organizational structure and rigorous
management to encourage sharing of information among specialties. Brtis (2021) suggests that for LDSE the systems
engineer should holistically consider:
• the full spectrum of adversities
• the full spectrum of weaknesses, defects, flaws, exposures, hazards, and vulnerabilities
• the full spectrum of assets and losses
• the full spectrum of timeframes of interest
• the full spectrum of coping mechanisms
and further, suggests the systems engineer:
• elicit, analyze, and capture loss-driven requirements as part of the overall stakeholder and system requirements
development
• make the loss-driven architectural decisions holistically across the loss-driven specialty areas
• make the loss-driven design decisions holistically across the loss-driven specialty areas
• integrate the management of risks associated with all loss-driven areas
Endler (2021) considers real life integration of loss-driven systems engineering activities into system development
activities. Challenges identified include lack of appreciation of the importance of loss-driven systems engineering
activities and organizational barriers. He finds that existing systems engineering standards poorly describe
loss-driven systems engineering activities and fail to integrate loss-drive activities with traditional engineering
activities. He proposes methods to overcome those barriers based on widely accepted standards. He offers an
approach to accomplish the needed integration with emphasis on the need that loss-driven systems engineers
participate throughout the system life cycle and be supported by a common understanding of an integrated approach.
Consequences for Model-Based Systems Engineering

Model-based systems engineering data and models need to be augmented to address the shared attributes of
loss-driven systems engineering: assets, losses, adversities, and coping techniques and the common information
artifacts identified above. Table 1 identifies some of the additional modeling information (in SysML form) that needs
to be captured during the various lifecycle stages to support the effective development and documentation of loss
management scenarios and loss management requirements.
Table 1. Modeling Information and Artifacts During Lifecycle Phases (Brtis 2020)
Lifecycle Phase Artifacts and Information
Mission and Stakeholder Needs Add adversities to the context diagram as actors
Analysis • Add loss management scenarios as use cases
Stakeholder Requirements Develop use case interaction diagrams to document the interaction of actors and architectural modules during
the loss management scenarios
• Develop sequence diagrams to represent the activity flow during loss management scenarios
System Requirements Develop activity diagrams to show the states of the system (and adversities) during loss management scenarios
Architecture and System Design Develop state models of the loss management scenarios
• Model events and signals among the architectural nodes
System Design Propose and select loss management design features

• Document loss management related object distribution
Use Case: Manned Space Rescue Vehicle

Cureton (2020) explores the applicability of LDSE to a use case, a hypothetical manned space rescue vehicle, via a
thought experiment regarding desirable characteristics for achieving resilience, safety, reliability, security, and other
loss-driven goals. Various design reference missions are explored for assessment of required loss-driven capabilities
in automated flight operations for a hypothetical manned space rescue vehicle.
Summary
Loss-driven systems engineering offers a valuable unification of loss-driven systems engineering specialty areas.
Applying this can integrate currently isolated systems engineering activities, leading to improved system
effectiveness and reduced systems engineering costs, while improving the management of potential losses associated
with the development and use of systems.
References
Works Cited
Cureton, K.L. 2020. “Role of LDSE for a Hypothetical Manned Space Rescue Vehicle.” INCOSE INSIGHT,
December 19-21.
Brtis, J.S. and M.A. McEvilley. 2019. “Systems Engineering for Resilience,” MITRE Technical Document #190495,
The MITRE Corporation. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. researchgate. net/ publication/
334549424_Systems_Engineering_for_Resilience.
Endler, D. 2020. “Integrating Loss-Driven Systems Engineering Activities.” INCOSE INSIGHT, December 14-18.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization. 2015. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015. Systems and software
engineering – System life cycle processes. Geneva, CH: ISO.
Jackson, S. 2020. “Loss-Driven Systems Engineering and Siloism.” INCOSE INSIGHT, December 32-33.
Watson, Michael D. 2019. "Systems Engineering Principles and Hypotheses." INCOSE INSIGHT, May 18-28.
Winstead, M., D. Hild, M. McEvilley, 2021. “Principles of Trustworthy Design of Cyber-Physical Systems.” MITRE
Technical Report #210263, The MITRE Corporation, June 2021. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https:/ /
www. researchgate. net/ publication/
353934929_Principles_for_Trustworthy_Design_of_Cyber-Physical_Systems_Acknowledgments.
Primary References
Brtis, J. S. and M. A. McEvilley 2020. “Unifying Loss-Driven Systems Engineering Activities.” INCOSE INSIGHT,
December 9-13. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. researchgate. net/ publication/
348502815_Unifying_Loss-Driven_Systems_Engineering_Activities.
Walden, D. D., et al. 2015. “Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and
Activities.” Fourth Edition. San Diego, US-CA: INCOSE.
Winstead, M. 2020. "An Early Attempt at a Core, Common Set of Loss-Driven Systems Engineering Principles.”
INCOSE INSIGHT, December 22-26. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https:/ / incose. onlinelibrary. wiley.
com/doi/abs/10.1002/inst.12316.
None.

Human Systems Integration

Lead Author: Ben Schwartz, Holly Handley Contributing Authors: Guy Boy, Alice Squires, Paul Phister, Stuart
Booth, and Dick Fairley
Human systems integration (HSI) is “the management and technical discipline of planning, enabling, coordinating,
and optimizing all human-related considerations during system design, development, test, production, use and
disposal of systems, subsystems, equipment and facilities.” (SAE 2019).
Though used by industries around the world, HSI was initiated by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) as part of
the “total system approach” to acquisition. The goal of HSI is to “optimize total system performance (hardware,
software, and human), operational effectiveness, and suitability, survivability, safety, and affordability.” (DoD 2003.)
This article itself focuses on HSI within the DoD, although much of it is applicable to other government and
commercial organizations worldwide.
HSI activities must be initiated “early in system development (during stakeholder requirements generation) and
continuously through the development process to realize the greatest benefit to the final system solution and
substantial life cycle cost savings.” (INCOSE 2015).
HSI generally incorporates the following seven domains as integration considerations (although some organizations
may use a slightly different set): manpower, personnel, training, human factors engineering, safety and occupational
health, force protection and survivability, and habitability.
Overview
Historically, insufficient systems engineering resources were dedicated to ensuring proper integration of humans
with the rest of the system. Most projects were technology-centered with human considerations being addressed
through training. Technological systems were hard to use and maintain resulting in large manpower and training
costs, reduced system performance, and increased risk of catastrophic loss, among other impacts.
The U.S. Army was among the first to address this with the Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT)
program in 1986. MANPRINT emphasized the consideration of the HSI domains throughout the system acquisition
as a standard part of the systems engineering effort. The approach has since been adopted by the broader DoD, by
other militaries, and by civilian government agencies around the world. (Booher 2003). Some organizations,
particularly the U.K. Ministry of Defence, use the term Human Factors Integration (HFI).
HSI applies systems engineering processes, tools, and techniques to ensure that human considerations are given
proper weight in all system development activities. HSI should not be confused with Human Factors Engineering
(HFE); HFE is a domain of HSI focusing on designing human interfaces. HSI is about mutual integration of
technology, organizations, and people.
System Description
HSI is more than human factors, human-computer interaction, or systems engineering. It is a technical and
managerial set of processes that involves the consideration and integration of multiple domains. In addition, HSI
involves complexity analysis and organization design and management. Various organizations represent the HSI
domains differently as the number and names of the domains are aligned with existing organizational structures.
Booher (2003) first presented the original seven US Army domains as manpower, personnel, training, human factors
engineering, soldier survivability, system safety and health hazards. Other countries may have a different number of
domains with slightly different names, however, all the technical work of the domains is present. For example, the
UK Defence Standard (00-251) includes seven similar domains: manpower, personnel, health hazards, training,
human factors engineering, social/ organizational and system safety. The seven domains used across the DoD
Instruction (DoD 2017) that tells how to operate the DoD Acquisition System are as follows:
1. Manpower Determining the most efficient and cost-effective mix of manpower and contract support necessary to
operate, maintain, provide training and support the system. Manpower describes the number and mix of personnel
required to carry out a task, multiple tasks, or mission in order to operate, maintain, support, and provide training
for a system. Manpower factors are those variables that define manpower requirements. These variables include
job tasks, operation/maintenance rates, associated workload, and operational conditions (e.g., risk of operator
injury) (DAU 2010).
2. Personnel: Determining and selecting the appropriate cognitive, physical, and social capabilities required to
train, operate, maintain, and sustain systems based on available personnel inventory or assigned to the mission.
Personnel factors are those human aptitudes (i.e., cognitive, physical, and sensory capabilities), knowledge, skills,
abilities, and experience levels that are needed to properly perform job tasks. Personnel factors are used to
develop occupational specialties for system operators, maintainers, trainers, and support personnel (DAU 2010).
The selection and assignment of personnel is critical to the success of a system, as determined by the needs set up
by various work-related requirements.
3. Training: Developing efficient and cost-effective options that enhance user capabilities and maintain skill
proficiencies for individual, collective, and joint training of operators and maintainers. Training is the learning
process by which personnel individually or collectively acquire or enhance pre-determined job-relevant
knowledge, skills, and abilities by developing their cognitive, physical, sensory, and team dynamic abilities. The
"training/instructional system" integrates training concepts and strategies, as well as elements of logistic support
to satisfy personnel performance levels required to operate, maintain, and support the systems. It includes the
"tools" used to provide learning experiences, such as computer-based interactive courseware, simulators, actual
equipment (including embedded training capabilities on actual equipment), job performance aids, and Interactive
Electronic Technical Manuals (DAU 2010).
4. Human Factors Engineering: The integration of human characteristics into system definition, design,
development, and evaluation to optimize human-system performance under operational conditions. Human
factors engineering (HFE) is primarily concerned with designing human-machine interfaces consistent with the
physical, cognitive, and sensory abilities of the user population (DAU 2010). It focuses on ensuring that the
system design is compatible with the human user. HFE considers required human tasks, and the sensory,
perceptual, mental, and physical attributes of the user personnel who will operate, control, maintain, and support
the equipment, system, or facility. The objective of HFE is to optimize human-system performance within the
desired levels of life-cycle costs. HFE domain considerations span a wide range and include design and layout of
working areas, user-equipment interfaces, use of automation and decision aids, and normal, non-normal, and
emergency conditions.
5. Safety & Occupational Health: Consider environmental, safety and occupational health in determining system
design characteristics to enhance job performance and minimize risks of illness, disability, injury and death to
operators and maintainers. Safety considers the design features and operating characteristics of a system that serve
to minimize the potential for human or machine errors or failure that cause injurious accidents (DAU 2010).
Safety also encompasses the administrative procedures and controls associated with the operations, maintenance,
and storage of a system. Occupational health factors are those system design features that serve to minimize the
risk of injury, acute or chronic illness, or disability, and/or reduce job performance of personnel who operate,
maintain, or support the system. Prevalent issues include noise, chemical safety, atmospheric hazards (including
those associated with confined space entry and oxygen deficiency), vibration, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation,
and human factors issues that can create chronic disease and discomfort such as repetitive motion diseases. Many
occupational health problems, particularly noise and chemical management, overlap with environmental impacts.
Human factors stress that creating a risk of chronic disease and discomfort overlaps with occupational health
considerations (DAU 2010).
6. Force Protection & Survivability: Impact system design (e.g., egress, survivability) to protect individuals and
units from direct threat events and accidents, including chemical, biological, and nuclear threats. Force Protection
and Survivability is the HSI domain that facilitates system operation and personnel safety during and after
exposure to hostile situations or environments. Force protection refers to all preventive measures taken to mitigate
hostile actions against personnel (to include family members), resources, facilities, and critical information.
Survivability denotes the capability of the system and/or personnel manning the system to avoid or withstand
manmade hostile environments without suffering an abortive impairment of his/her ability to accomplish its
designated mission. Survivability factors consist of those system design features that reduce the risk of fratricide,
detection, and the probability of being attacked, and that enable personnel to withstand man-made hostile
environments without aborting the mission or objective, or suffering acute chronic illness, disability, or death.
Survivability attributes are those that contribute to the survivability of manned systems (DAU 2010).
7. Habitability: Establishing and enforcing requirements for individual and unit physical environments, personnel
services, and living conditions, to prevent or mitigate risk conditions that adversely impact performance, quality
of life and morale, or degrade recruitment or retention. Habitability factors are those living and working
conditions that are necessary to sustain the morale, safety, health, and comfort of the user population. They
directly contribute to personnel effectiveness and mission accomplishment and often preclude recruitment and
retention problems. Examples include lighting, space, ventilation, and sanitation; noise and temperature control
(i.e., heating and air conditioning); religious, medical, and food services availability; and berthing, bathing, and
personal hygiene. Habitability consists of those characteristics of systems, facilities (temporary and permanent),
and services necessary to satisfy personnel needs. Habitability factors are those living and working conditions that
result in levels of personnel morale, safety, health, and comfort adequate to sustain maximum personnel
effectiveness, support mission performance, and avoid personnel retention problems (DAU 2010).
In a contractor project organization, the human systems integrator is typically a member of the senior engineering
staff reporting to either the systems engineering lead or chief engineer.
HSI activities are documented in the Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP). Larger programs may have a
stand-alone HSI Plan (HSIP) compatible with and referenced by the SEMP. HSI activities are tailored to the needs of
the project and the project life cycle (NASA 2016).
Most projects implement a Joint HSI Working Group between the customer and contractor. This enables sharing of
priorities, knowledge, and effort to allow each group to achieve their objectives.
Interactions
Interactions include:
• SE: HSI is an integral part of the systems engineering effort and the integrator participates in all relevant systems
engineering activities during the whole life cycle of the system being considered.
• HSI domain experts: Domain experts collaborate with the human systems integrator to achieve HSI objectives,
though this may or may not be a direct reporting relationship.
• The contractor and customer may each have a human systems integrator and various domain experts; each role
should collaborate with their counterparts to the appropriate extent.
• HSI domain experts may participate in integrated product teams (IPTs)/design teams as full participants or
consultants as appropriate for the needs of the project.
• HSI shares many concerns with Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM). The integrator and/or
domain experts may collaborate with RAM specialists as appropriate.
• The integrator and/or domain experts should work with the Test & Evaluation team to ensure that HSI is
represented in test and evaluation events.
• HSI shares many concerns with logistics and supportability, the integrator and/or domain experts may collaborate
with this team as appropriate.
Dependencies
HSI depends on sufficient scope of work and authorization from the project. Proper planning and leadership buy-in
is a key enabler.
Note: These are standards relevant to the practice of HSI specifically and not each of the HSI domains, which have
their own standards and practices.
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2015. Human Systems Integration Practitioner’s Guide.
NASA/SP-2015-3709. Houston: Johnson Space Center.
• SAE International. 2019. Standard Practice for Human Systems Integration. SAE6906. Warrendale, PA: SAE
International.
• U.K. Ministry of Defence. 2016. Defence Standard 00-251: Human Factors Integration for Defence Systems.
Glasglow: Defence Equipment and Support.
• U.S. Army. 2015. Regulation 602-2: Human Systems Integration in the System Acquisition Process. Washington:
Headquarters, Department of the Army.
• U.S. Department of Defense. 2011. Data Item Description: Human Systems Integration Program Plan.
DI-HFAC-81743A.
• U.S. Navy. 2017. Opnav Instruction 5310.23A: Navy Personnel Human Systems Integration. Washington: Office
of the Chief of Naval Operations: Department of the Navy.
Personnel Considerations
HSI is conducted by a human systems integrator. The integrator is part of the systems engineering team responsible
for conducting systems engineering related to human and organizational considerations and for coordinating the
work of the HSI domain experts.
HSI uses the same techniques and approaches as systems engineering with additional consideration for non-materiel
aspects of the system. Therefore, the integrator must be well-versed in the SE process and have a working
understanding of each of the domains. The integrator does not need to be an expert in any of the domains.
The human systems integrator’s responsibilities include:
• providing inputs to the SEMP and/or creating an HSI Plan (HSIP) compatible with the SEMP and the project life
cycle (NASA Systems Engineering Handbook 2016)
• tailoring the scope of HSI efforts to the needs of the project and system life cycle
• ensuring HSI domains are given appropriate consideration across all programmatic and engineering activities
• assisting domain personnel in planning domain activities
• facilitating execution of domain tasks and collaboration among domains
• making tradeoffs among domains to optimize the attainment of HSI goals
• optimizing the impact of domains on the acquisition program from the perspectives of performance,
sustainability, and cost
• integrating the results of domain activities and representing them to the rest of the acquisition program from a
total HSI perspective
• facilitating interactions among domains within the scope of HSI, and between HSI and the rest of the program
• tracking, statusing, and assessing HSI risks, issues and opportunities that have surfaced during the execution of
the program
Metrics
Human-System Measures of Effectiveness

A measure of effectiveness (MOE) is a metric corresponding to the accomplishment of the mission objective. MOEs
measure system performance in a representative mission context, including with representative users. Effectiveness
is typically achieved through a combination of hardware, software, and human components, thus there are not
typically HSI-specific MOEs.
MOEs may be decomposed into measures of performance (MOP) and measures of suitability (MOS). There may be
HSI-specific MOPs and MOSs. For example, an MOE for an air defense radar might be positive detection
probability, with an MOP for the radar’s effective resolution and an MOP for the operator’s ability to identify the
target. It is the human system integrator’s responsibility to ensure that relevant MOPs and MOSs are identified and
incorporated into modeling, simulation, test, and evaluation efforts. The integrator and domain experts may
contribute to these efforts as appropriate.
Models
HSI Process Models

HSI shares common systems engineering models with general systems engineering; e.g. the SE Vee process model.
Additionally, a number of HSI-specific models and processes exist. A particularly good resource is "A
User-Centered Systems Engineering Framework" by Ehrhart and Sage (in Booher 2003).
Human Performance and Domain Models

A variety of human performance models exist for cognition, behavior, anthropometry, strength, fatigue, attention,
situation awareness, etc. Additionally, a variety of models exist for each HSI domain. The integrator should have a
good understanding of the types of models available and the appropriate applications. In a project utilizing
model-based systems engineering, the system model should include humans. The integrator should ensure sufficient
fidelity to meet the needs of the project. Human-in-the-loop simulations should be encouraged during the design
process as during the whole life cycle of a product.
Tools
HSI shares common tools with systems engineering. A sample of HSI-specific tools include:
• Command Control and Communications - Techniques for Reliable Assessment of Concept Execution
(C3TRACE) [1] developed by U.S. Army Research Labs.
• Comprehensive Human Integration Evaluation Framework (CHIEF) [2] developed by U.S. Navy.
• Human Analysis and Requirements Planning System (HARPS) [3] developed by U.S. Navy Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Command.
• Human Systems Integration Framework (HSIF) [4] developed by U.S. Air Force. (USAF 2009)
• Improved Performance and Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT) [1] developed by U.S. Army Research Labs.
Additionally, each HSI domain has specific tools and approaches for their unique efforts and considerations.
Pitfalls
Many organizations assign a human factors engineer to the human systems integrator role. This can be a mistake if
the individual is not well versed in the SE process. Relegating HSI to a “specialty engineering” team deprives the
integrator of sufficient scope and authority to accomplish their mission.
Proven Practices
Ensure the human systems integrator is a knowledgeable systems engineer with the respect of the other systems
engineers and with a good understanding of each of the HSI domains. A human systems integrator should be
involved in program planning activities to ensure sufficient budget and schedule. They should be involved in
technical planning activities to create sufficient scope in the SEMP/HISPP, identify HSI-related risks and
opportunities, recommend HSI trade studies, etc. There is significant overlap and trade space among the HSI
domains, therefore the domain experts, led by the integrator, should collaborate throughout the project to optimize
the impact of HSI.
References
Works Cited
Booher, H.R. (ed.). 2003. Handbook of Human Systems Integration. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Boy, G.A. 2017. “Human-Centered Design as an Integrating Discipline.” ‘’Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and
Informatics.’’ International Institute of Informatics and Systemics. 15(1): 25-32. ISSN: 1690-4524.
DoD. 2003. DoD Directive 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https:/ /
www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/500001p.pdf.
DoD. 2017. DoD Instruction 5000.02T, Operation of The Defense Acquisition System. Accessed April 2, 2021.
Available at https:/ / www. esd. whs. mil/ Portals/ 54/ Documents/ DD/ issuances/ dodi/ 500002p. pdf. (DoD
Instruction 5000.02 is being incrementally updated and replaced. The "T" after 5000.02 stands for transition.)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2016. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook Rev. 2.
Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/nasa-systems-engineering-handbook
SAE International. 2019. Standard Practice for Human Systems Integration (SAE6906). Warrendale, PA: SAE.
Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/sae6906.
UK Defence Standardization. Def Stan 00-251 Human Factors Integration for Defence Systems, Revision I1,
February 5, 2016. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https:/ / global. ihs. com/ doc_detail. cfm?&
item_s_key=00670685& item_key_date=831026& input_doc_number=00%2D251&
input_doc_title=#product-details-list.
USAF. 2009. Air Force Human Systems Integration Handbook. Brooks City-Base, TX, USA: Directorate of Human
Performance Integration. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available athttps:/ / www. acqnotes. com/ Attachments/
Air%20Force%20Human%20System%20Integration%20Handbook.pdf.
Primary References
None.
Blanchard, B.S. and W.J. Fabrycky. 2011. Systems Engineering and Analysis. 5th ed. Prentice-Hall International
Boy, G.A. (2013). ‘’Orchestrating Human-Centered Design.’’ Springer, U.K. ISBN 978-1-4471-4338-3.
Helander, M., T.K. Landauer, and P.V. Prabhu. 1997. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam,
Pew, R.W. and A.S. Mavor. 2007. Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look.
Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.
Simpkiss, B. (2009). ‘’AFHSIO-001: Human Systems Integration Requirements Pocket Guide.’’ Falls Church, VA:
Air Force Human Systems Integration Office.
Wickens, C.D., J.D. Lee, Y. Liu, and S. Gordon-Becker. 2011. An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering, 2nd
Ed. Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Woodson, W.E, B. Tillman, and P. Tillman. 1991. Human Factors Design Handbook: Information and Guidelines
for the Design of Systems, Facilities, Equipment, and Products for Human Use, 2nd Ed. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw Hill.

References
[1] https:/ / www. arl. army. mil/ www/ default. cfm?page=3200
[2] http:/ / calhoun. nps. edu/ handle/ 10945/ 42696
[3] https:/ / www. dau. mil/ cop/ log/ pages/ topics/ Manpower%20and%20Personnel. aspx
[4] https:/ / www. acq. osd. mil/ se/ webinars/ 2015_10_06-SoSECIE-Risser-Lacson-brief. pdf
Manufacturability and Producibility

Lead Authors: Dick Fairley, Kevin Forsberg, Contributing Authors: Paul Phister, Alice Squires, Richard Turner
Manufacturability and producibility is an engineering specialty. The machines and processes used to build a system
must be architected and designed. A systems engineering approach to manufacturing and production is necessary
because manufacturing equipment and processes can sometimes cost more than the system being built (Maier and
Rechtin 2009). Manufacturability and producibility can be a discriminator between competing system solution
concepts and therefore must be considered early in the study period, as well as during the maturing of the final
design solution.
Overview
The system being built might be intended to be one-of-a-kind or to be reproduced multiple times. The manufacturing
system differs for each of these situations and is tied to the type of system being built. For example, the manufacture
of a single-board computer would be vastly different from the manufacture of an automobile. Production involves
the repeated building of the designed system. Multiple production cycles require the consideration of production
machine maintenance and downtime.
Manufacturing and production engineering involve similar systems engineering processes specifically tailored to the
building of the system. Manufacturability and producibility are the key attributes of a system that determine the ease
of manufacturing and production. While manufacturability is simply the ease of manufacture, producibility also
encompasses other dimensions of the production task, including packaging and shipping. Both these attributes can be
improved by incorporating proper design decisions that take into account the entire system life cycle (Blanchard and
Fabrycky 2010).
Works Cited
Maier, M. and E. Rechtin. 2009. The Art of Systems Architecting, 3rd Ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Blanchard, B.S. and W.J. Fabrycky. 2010. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 5th Ed. Prentice-Hall International
Series in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Englwood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Primary References
None.
Anderson, D. 2010. Design for Manufacturability & Concurrent Engineering; How to Design for Low Cost, Design
in High Quality, Design for Lean Manufacture, and Design Quickly for Fast Production. Cambria, CA, USA: CIM
Manufacturability and Producibility 995
Press.
Boothroyd, G., P. Dewhurst, and W. Knight. 2010. Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly. 3rd Ed. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press. A short video explaining their approach is available at https:/ / www. youtube. com/
watch?v=6b29TW05o0o, Accessed April 2, 2021.
Bralla, J. 1998. Design for Manufacturability Handbook. New York, NY, USA: McGraw Hill Professional.

System Adaptability
Lead Authors: Haifeng Zhu and Eileen Patrice Arnold
To adapt means “to make fit (as for a new use) often by modification” (Merriam-Webster, Inc. n.d.). The term
adaptation is traditionally used in natural ecosystems as the “modification of an organism or its parts that makes it
more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment” where the conditions can be either positive or
negative (Andersen and Gronau 2005). Following from the dictionary definition, System Adaptability is a system’s
ability to satisfy mission and requirement changes, with or without modifications (Zhu 2015) (Jackson 2016). One
common way to judge whether a system is more adaptable than another is if it is able to support mission and
requirement changes at lower cost – an indication of how difficult a system is to adapt. Note that the term cost here
may not necessarily be financial. It may include time, fuel, complexity as adopted in Zhu, et al. (2016) or any metric
that designers, users, and other stakeholders value with regard to the difficulty of modifications.
Adaptability in Systems Engineering

The adaptability concept is applicable to both real and conceptual systems as defined in Sillitto, Hillary, et al. (2017).
Many concepts are related to system adaptability such as system resilience, flexible design, and design reuse.
• System resilience has traditionally focused on graceful degradation and recovery of a system's performance,
triggered by adverse events and planned for in advance. (see System Resilience) System adaptability focuses on
solutions for changes caused by either adversarial or beneficial events.
• Flexible design in industrial engineering (Saleh, et al. 2009) often requires up-front investment and justification of
redundant design components or facilities, with more than 50 kinds of flexibilities defined and studied.
• System adaptability looks into future changes to inform current design choices for reduction of unnecessarily
redundant design components. System adaptability encourages reuse, but generally does not promote it at the
expense of higher cost.
Three Fundamental Factors

Comparing adaptability among different systems relies on three fundamental factors:
• Mission and Requirement Evaluation Space (MRES)
• Design Space
• Switching Cost
These factors are explained in the next three subsections.
Mission and Requirement Evaluation Space (MRES)

Common development practice assumes each requirement is for current needs and is often subject to budget
constraint perceptions. MRES differs in that it uses systems thinking (see Systems Thinking) to project into the
future and identifies requirements with high risk of change. These uncertain requirements come from stakeholder
decisions, market changes, technology progression, engineering uncertainties, and other sources. They are potential
needs that can optionally be considered. (Zhu, 2023) MRES is a collection of current needs (i.e. requirements and
missions) and optional potential needs. These projections into the future offer valuable information when designing
for adaptability. Of course, predicting possible future needs is an uncertain task and itself incurs costs. Important
optional potential needs could be overlooked or poorly stated. Under cost and schedule pressure, developing optional
potential needs could be shortchanged. Nevertheless, anticipating optional possible future needs and their potential
impact on design is a valuable systems engineering (SE) activity.
Design Space
SE normally includes developing alternative possible designs and comparing them to pick the best one among the
alternatives. A collection of different possible system designs is called the design space or trade space in which
tradeoff studies or trade studies are performed to pick the one that will be implemented. (Cilli & Parnell 2014)
(NASA 2016) In modern design approaches, design spaces can be enormous with automated and semi-automated
means to conduct the trade study. (Raz, et al. 2018) The trade study is based on a set of decision factors, which can
include system adaptability.
Switching Cost
If adapting the system requires modifying it, the ease of modification indicates the degree of adaptability. The cost of
switching from one system design/state to another design/state is called the switching cost which is a good indicator
of how difficult it is to adapt. As stated at the beginning of this article, the term cost here may not necessarily be
financial.
Traditional financial cost estimation assumes a system is developed from scratch, which in reality is rarely done.
Many products are developed by modifying designs from prior products, where the cost is actually a switching cost.
Methods of estimating switching cost for a complete generic system, rather than individual components or systems
of a specific kind, were initiated mainly by two research teams: a process-based method was developed and later
reported in Zhu (2018) and a parametric approach was developed in COSYSMO (Alstad 2019).
Development History
Two major prior works on system adaptability were authored by Gu, Hashemian, and Nee (2004) and by Ross,
Rhodes, and Hastings (2007). The first defines adaptability as a normalized savings in switching from one product to
another, emphasizing the costs as the main consideration. In Ross, Rhodes, and Hastings (2007), for two designs A
and B, if A can be modified to become B, then a link is created between them. They define the adaptability of a
design as the outdegree or filtered outdegree from that design. A design’s outdegree counts the links from this design
to the other designs.
In a design space, some designs support the mission better than others. Without considering the support to missions
or requirements, measuring the cost to switch to another design (Gu, Hashemian, & Nee 2004) or how many other
designs one design can switch to (Ross, Rhodes, & Hastings 2007) can result in inverted measures, where an entity
that would receive a higher value of the measurement result than another entity receives with a lower value result. A
design that is able to switch with low cost to many other designs that are of no or low value for missions may receive
a higher adaptability score than another design that actually supports the needed missions. Fundamentally, these two
works capture only two of the three fundamental factors described in section Mission and Requirements Evaluation
Space above - the MRES factor, which is needed to prevent inverted measures.
In an eco-system, a species adapts in order to survive and exist longer. In SE, being able to support future
missions/requirement needs prolongs the service life of the system and extends its existence, which is well aligned
with the eco-system definition of adaptability.
There are also domain-specific definitions of adaptability and switching costs in such domains as IT, control, and
self-adaptive systems areas. (Zhu, et al. 2016).
Demonstrating Adaptability: An Aerospace Example

In the following example, a high-level abstraction of an aircraft engine is used to illustrate how to evaluate the
adaptability of system designs (Zhu, et al., 2016) using the three critical factors: MRES, Design Space, and
Switching Costs.
MRES
Capturing flight missions for the engine example is the first step. The following operations set the stage for key
mission requirements:
1. One engine inoperative
2. Takeoff Gradient of Climb
3. Climb Rate
4. Cruise Range
Three typical types of aircraft are used in commercial airline operations:
• a city-to-city short range aircraft
• a regional jet
• a transatlantic jet
Support for one engine becoming inoperative is required by aviation regulations. In addition, Takeoff Gradient of
Climb, Climb Rates, and Cruise Range are as indicated in Table 1.
Table 1. Mission Parameters. (SEBoK Original)

Aircraft Type Takeoff Gradient Climb Rate (Ft/Min) Cruise Range (Nautical Miles)
City-to-City Aircraft 1.2% (low) 1000 (low) 700 (short-range)
Regional Jet 1.2% (low) 1500 (high) 2000 (mid-range)
Transatlantic Jet 1.2% (low) 1500 (high) 4000 (long-range)
Suppose a customer wants to build a customized aircraft that has different mission preferences beyond the three
regular types of aircraft, and the engine supplier is asked to design an engine to support that customization.
Enumerating all possible values for each mission parameter, where each parameter takes three values (low, median
and high), would produce 27 missions. However, here the customer prefers to consider only the 6 missions described
in Table 2. The remaining 21 missions are deemed not needed and omitted from the design space. In this table,
“optional” preferences refer to possible future mission needs such as fuel economy.
Table 2. Mission and Requirement Evaluation Space. (SEBoK Original)

Missions 1 2 3 4 5 6
Takeoff Gradient low low low high high high
Climb Rate low low low low low low
Cruise Range long-range mid-range short-range long-range mid-range short-range
Preference optional required required optional optional optional
Design Space
In this top abstraction level, an exhaustive search for all possible engine designs is conducted, and 12 design
architectures are found. Each engine architecture may support one or more of these 6 missions. To simplify the
discussion, three representative architectures were selected and shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 which will be used to
illustrate how architecture optimization is performed.
Figure 1. Selected Engine Architecture 3

Here, purple links represent the mechanical path and green links represent the gas path.
Switching Cost
In this aircraft engine example, the costs of switching from each architecture to each of the other 11 architectures
would be estimated.
Architecture Optimization
When deciding which architecture to pick, a naïve approach would be picking the one that supports most of the
missions in MRES. This often leads to a costly design that requires significant investment upfront that is undesirable.
One of the advantages of developing a system with adaptability in mind is that it does not require significant upfront
investment. For example, assume Architecture 3 and 6 can both meet the current needs, but there is a reasonable
chance that changes may be needed such that only Architecture 9 is capable of supporting the future needs. If
Architecture 3 and 6 are both acceptable in cost, but the switching cost from Architecture 6 to Architecture 9 is much
higher than the switching from Architecture 3 to Architecture 9, one might want to choose Architecture 3. Note,
however, that this discussion only considers system adaptability. It is likely other factors, such as schedule or
company strategy, are also important and would be included in the trade study.
Quantification
System adaptability can be quantified. One such adaptability metric was developed by Zhu, et al. (2016), which can
be conveniently used as a rule of thumb for engineers to judge how adaptable their system design is. This metric has
a range of [0, 1] where a higher value indicates the system is more adaptable. The actual value is based on a function
that considers both a weighting of the MRES missions/requirements as well as the switching costs to achieve the
optional future missions/requirements. A design that can support all current and optional possible future
missions/requirements within the cost threshold has an adaptability score of 1. A design that can support none of the
optional missions/requirements within the cost threshold has an adaptability score of 0. All other designs have scores
ranging between 0 and 1. Using the algorithm found in Zhu, et al. (2016), for the above aircraft engine example,
Architecture 9 is perfectly adaptable with a score of 1, Architecture 3 is mostly adaptable with a score of 0.6, and
architecture 6 is partially adaptable with a score of 0.25.
Other Applications
The same concept can be applied to any other system domain, such as Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
(HVAC) systems (Zhu, 2019), medical systems, transportation systems or social systems.
Technology and Engineering Management Phase

An adaptability metric is useful in system development and management whereby each design’s adaptability metric
is calculated and factored into trade studies for down-selections. (Zhu 2015) “Switching costs also significantly
influence managerial decisions. They have been shown to influence the competitive strategies that managers adopt”
as summarized by Whitten (2009) from Eliashberg and Robertson (1988). The adaptable design process in Figure 4
evolves with varying stakeholders, e.g. management, customers and technical teams. At the beginning of defining a
system design, information such as requirements, financial budget information, management vision and a roadmap
are generated. Current and optional possible missions and requirements are collected into MRES. The technical team
then generates different designs within the design space and calculates the adaptability metric value for each design.
That value can then influence design selection. This approach can be applied by both commercial and government
organizations not only to internal development but also to acquisition from external organizations.
Figure 4. Adaptable Design Process
Also, agile, spiral, incremental and similar modern development lifecycles offer an opportunity to revisit both
current and optional possible needs, allowing the then current architecture and design to be revisited in the context of
system adaptability.
References
Works Cited
Alstad, J.P. 2019. "Development of COSYSMO 3.0: An Extended, Unified Cost Estimating Model for Systems
Engineering". Procedia Computer Science, Volume 153: 55-62. Accessed May 17, 2023. Available at https:/ / www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050919307148.
Andersen, K. and N. Gronau. 2005. "An Approach to Increase Adaptability in ERP Systems: Managing Modern
Organizations with Information Technology". Information Resources Management Association International
Conference. Accessed May 17, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. researchgate. net/ publication/
316125861_An_Approach_to_Increase_Adaptability_in_ERP_Systems.
Cilli, M.V. and G.S. Parnell. 2014. "Systems Engineering Tradeoff Study Process Framework". Proceedings of the
INCOSE International Symposium, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available at https:/ / www.
researchgate.net/publication/268820833_431_Systems_Engineering_Tradeoff_Study_Process_Framework.
Eliashberg, J. and T.S. Robertson. 1988. New product preannouncing behavior: A market signaling study. Journal of
Marketing Research.
Gu, P., M. Hashemian, and A. Nee. 2004. "Adaptable Design". CIRP Annals, 53(2): 539-557.
Jackson, S. 2016. Evaluation of resilience principles for engineered systems. A thesis submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy from the University of South Australia. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available at https:/ / www.
researchgate.net/publication/310480574_Evaluation_of_Resilience_Principles_for_Engineered_Systems.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. n.d. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Accessed May 15, 2023. Available
at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adapt.
NASA. 2016. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, Revision 2. Washington, DC, USA: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). NASA SP-2016-6105 Rev2 supersedes NASA/SP-2007-6105. Accessed May 18,
2023. Available at https:/ / www. nasa. gov/ sites/ default/ files/ atoms/ files/
nasa_systems_engineering_handbook_0.pdf.
Raz, A., C.R. Kenley, and D.A. DeLaurentis. 2018. "System Architecting and Design Space Characterization".
INCOSE Systems Engineering. 21(3): 227-242. Accessed May 19, 2023. Available at https:/ / incose. onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sys.21439.
Ross, A.M., D.H. Rhodes, and D.E. Hastings, D.E. 2007. "Defining System Changeability: Reconciling Flexibility,
Adaptability, Scalability, and Robustness for Maintaining System Lifecycle Value". Proceedings of the INCOSE
International Symposium. June 24-28, 2007, San Diego, CA, USA. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available at: https:/ /
incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sys.20098.
Saleh, J.H., G. Mark, G., and N.C. Jord. 2009. "Flexibility: a multi-disciplinary literature review and a research
agenda for designing flexible engineering systems". Journal of Engineering Design. 20(3): 307-323. Accessed May
18, 2023. Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09544820701870813.
Sillitto, Hillary, et al. 2017. "Defining 'system': A comprehensive approach". Proceedings of the INCOSE
International Symposium. July 15-20, 2017, Adelaide, Australia. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available at https:/ /
www.researchgate.net/publication/318601827_Defining_System_a_Comprehensive_Approach.
Whitten, D. 2009. "Adaptability in IT Sourcing: The Impact of Switching Costs". Americas Conference on
Information Systems (AMCIS). Texas A & M University. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available at: https:/ / core. ac. uk/
download/pdf/301347338.pdf.
Zhu, H. 2015. "Designing Systems with Adaptability in Mind". Proceedings of the International Conference in
Complex System Design and Management (CSD&M). Paris. Access May 17, 2023. Available at https:/ / link.
springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26109-6_20.
Zhu, H. 2018. "Developing Case‐Based Costs Estimation: A Recursive Approach and Case Study". Proceedings of
the INCOSE International Symposium, July 7-12, 2018, Washington, DC, USA. 28(1): 1362-1374. Accessed May
18, 2023. Available at https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2018.00553.x.
Zhu, H. 2019. "Controlling Costs and Margins of Engineered Systems". INCOSE INSIGHT Magazine. 22(1):37-40.
Accessed on May 18, 2023. Available at https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/inst.12236.
Zhu, H. 2023. "A Development Procedure for Discovering Uncertaint Requirements". Proceedings of the IEEE
Systems Conference. April 17-20, 2023, Vancouver, Canada.
Zhu, H., B. Murray, O. de Weck, R. Skelding, N. Shougarian, L. Zeidner, et al. 2016. "Adaptability Metric Analysis
for Multi‐Mission Design of Manufactured Products and Systems". Proceedings of the INCOSE International
Symposium, July 18-21, 2016, Edinburgh, Scotland. 29(1): 2316-2330. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available at https:/
/incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2016.00297.x.
Primary References
Alstad, J.P. 2019. "Development of COSYSMO 3.0: An Extended, Unified Cost Estimating Model for Systems
Engineering." Procedia Computer Science, Volume 153: 55-62. Accessed May 17, 2023. Available at https:/ / www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050919307148.
Martin H, J.A., J. de Lope, D. Maravall. 2009. "Adaptation, Anticipation and Rationality in Natural and Artificial
Systems: Computational Paradigms Mimicking Nature". Natural Computing. 8: 757-775. Accessed May 18, 2023.
Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11047-008-9096-6.
Zhu, H. 2015. "Designing Systems with Adaptability in Mind. Proceedings of the International Conference in
Complex System Design and Management (CSD&M)". Paris. Access May 17, 2023.Available at https:/ / link.
springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26109-6_20.
Zhu, H., B.Murray, O. de Weck, R. Skelding, N. Shougarian, L. Zeidner, et al. 2016. "Adaptability Metric Analysis
for Multi‐Mission Design of Manufactured Products and Systems". Proceedings of the INCOSE International
Symposium, July 18-21, 2016, Edinburgh, Scotland. 29(1): 2316-2330. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available at https:/ /
incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2016.00297.x.
Zhu, H. 2018. "Developing Case‐Based Costs Estimation: A Recursive Approach and Case Study". Proceedings of
the INCOSE International Symposium, July 7-12, 2018, Washington, DC, USA. 28(1): 1362-1374. Accessed May
18, 2023. Available at https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2018.00553.x.
Chan, H. and F. Chan. 2010. "Comparative Study on Flexibility and Adaptability in Decision Support Systems".
Decision Support Systems. 48(2): 331-341. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available athttps:/ / www. sciencedirect. com/
getaccess/pii/S0167923609002073/purchase.
Horbach, S., et al. 2011. Building blocks for adaptable factory systems. Robotics and Computer-integrated
Manufacturing. 27(4): 735-740. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available athttps:/ / www. sciencedirect. com/ science/
article/abs/pii/S0736584511000123.
Shaw, G.B., D.W. Miller, and D.E. Hastings. 2001. "Development of the Quantitative Generalized Information
Network Analysis Methodology for Satellite Systems". Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 38(2): 257-269. Accessed
May 18, 2023. Available at https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/2.3679.
Silver, M. and O. de Weck. 2007. "Time-Expanded Decision Networks: A Framework for Designing Evolvable
Complex Systems". INCOSE Systems Engineering. 10(2): 167-186.
Wang, G., et al. 2009. "Harmonizing Systems and Software Cost Estimation". INCOSE International Symposium.
19(1): 232-252. Accessed May 18, 2023. Available at https:/ / web. mst. edu/ lib-circ/ files/ Special%20Collections/
INCOSE/Harmonizing%20Systems%20and%20Software%20Cost%20Estimation.pdf.
Wang, G., R. Valerdi, and J. Fortune. 2010. "Reuse in Systems Engineering". IEEE Systems Journal. 4(3): 376-384.
Accessed May 18, 2023. Available at https:/ / dspace. mit. edu/ bitstream/ handle/ 1721. 1/ 69897/
Wang-2010-Reuse%20in%20Systems%20Eng.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.
System Affordability
Lead Author: Paul Phister, Contributing Author: Ray Madachy
According to MITRE (2014), affordability is the "ability to fund desired investment". "Solutions are affordable if
they can be deployed in sufficient quantity to meet mission needs within the (likely) available budget." INCOSE
(2015) offers a slightly deeper definition. A system is affordable to the degree that system performance, cost, and
schedule constraints are balanced over the system life, while mission needs are satisfied in concert with strategic
investment and organizational needs. Design for affordability is the practice of considering affordability as a design
characteristic or constraint.
Increasing competitive pressures and the scarcity of resources demand that systems engineering (SE) improve
affordability. Several recent initiatives have made affordability their top technical priority. They also call for a high
priority to be placed on research into techniques — namely, improved systems autonomy and human performance
augmentation — that promise to reduce labor costs, provide more efficient equipment to reduce supply costs, and
create adaptable systems whose useful lifetime is extended cost-effectively.
However, methods for cost and schedule estimation have not changed significantly to address these new challenges
and opportunities. There is a clear need for:
• new methods to analyze tradeoffs between cost, schedule, effectiveness, and resilience;
• new methods to adjust priorities and deliverables to meet budgets and schedules; and
• more affordable systems development processes.
All of this must be accomplished in the context of the rapid changes underway in technology, competition,
operational concepts, and workforce characteristics.
Overview
Historically, cost and schedule estimation has been decoupled from technical SE tradeoff analyses and decision
reviews. Most models and tools focus on evaluating either cost-schedule performance or technical performance, but
not the tradeoffs between the two. Meanwhile, organizations and their systems engineers often focus on affordability
to minimize acquisition costs. They are then drawn into the easiest-first approaches that yield early successes, at the
price of being stuck with brittle, expensive-to-change architectures that increase technical debt and life cycle costs.
Two indications that the need for change is being recognized in systems engineering are that the INCOSE SE
Handbook now includes affordability as one of the criteria for evaluating requirements (INCOSE 2015) and that
there is a trend in SE towards stronger focus on maintainability, flexibility, and evolution (Blanchard, Verma, and
Peterson 1995).
There are pitfalls for the unwary. Autonomous systems experience several hazardous failure modes, including:
• system instability due to positive feedback — where an agent senses a parameter reaching a control limit and
gives the system a strong push in the other direction, causing the system to rapidly approach the other control
limit, causing the agent (or another) to give it an even stronger push in the original direction, and so on
• self-modifying autonomous agents which fail after several self-modifications — the failures are difficult to
debug because the agent’s state has been changing
• autonomous agents performing weakly at commonsense reasoning about system control decisions by human
operators, and so tend to reach incorrect conclusions and make incorrect decisions about controlling the system
• multiple agents making contradictory decisions about controlling the system, and lacking the ability to
understand the contradiction or to negotiate a solution to resolve it
Modularization of the system’s architecture around its most frequent sources of change (Parnas 1979) is a key SE
principle for affordability. This is because when changes are needed, their side effects are contained in a single
systems element, rather than rippling across the entire system.

This approach creates the need for three further improvements:
• refocusing the system requirements, not only on a snapshot of current needs, but also on the most likely sources
of requirements change, or evolution requirements;
• monitoring and acquiring knowledge about the most frequent sources of change to better identify requirements for
evolution;
• evaluating the system’s proposed architecture to assess how well it supports the evolution requirements, as well as
the initial snapshot requirements.
This approach can be extended to produce several new practices. Systems engineers can
• identify the commonalities and variability across the families of products or product lines, and develop
architectures for creating (and evolving) the common elements once with plug-compatible interfaces for inserting
the variable elements,;(Boehm, Lane, and Madachy 2010)
• extrapolate principles for service-oriented system elements that are characterized by their inputs, outputs, and
assumptions, and that can easily be composed into systems in which the sources of change were not anticipated;
• develop classes of smart or autonomous systems whose many sensors identify needed changes, and whose
autonomous agents determine and effect those changes in microseconds, or much more rapidly than humans can,
reducing not only reaction time, but also the amount of human labor needed to operate the systems, thus
improving affordability.
Autonomous systems need human supervision, and the humans involved require better methods for trend analysis
and visualization of trends (especially undesired ones).
There is also the need, with autonomous systems, to extend the focus from life cycle costs to total ownership costs,
which encompass the costs of failures, including losses in sales, profits, mission effectiveness, or human quality of
life. This creates a further need to evaluate affordability in light of the value added by the system under
consideration. In principle, this involves evaluating the system’s total cost of ownership with respect to its mission
effectiveness and resilience across a number of operational scenarios. However, determining the appropriate
scenarios and their relative importance is not easy, particularly for multi-mission systems of systems. Often, the best
that can be done involves a mix of scenario evaluation and evaluation of general system attributes, such as cost,
schedule, performance, and so on.
As for these system attributes, different success-critical stakeholders will have different preferences, or utility
functions, for a given attribute. This makes converging on a mutually satisfactory choice among the candidate
system solutions a difficult challenge involving the resolution of the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
problem among the stakeholders (Boehm and Jain 2006). This is a well-known problem with several paradoxes, such
as Arrow’s impossibility theorem that describes the inability to guarantee a mutually optimal solution among several
stakeholders, and several paradoxes in stakeholder preference aggregation in which different voting procedures
produce different winning solutions. Still, groups of stakeholders need to make decisions, and various negotiation
support systems enable people to better understand each other’s utility functions and to arrive at mutually satisfactory
decisions, in which no one gets everything that they want, but everyone is at least as well off as they are with the
current system.
Also see System Analysis for considerations of cost and affordability in the technical design space.
Primary References
Works Cited
Blanchard, B., D. Verma, and E. Peterson. 1995. Maintainability: A Key to Effective Serviceability and Maintenance
Management. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.
Boehm, B., J. Lane, and R. Madachy. 2010. "Valuing system flexibility via total ownership cost analysis."
Proceedings of the NDIA SE Conference, October 2010, San Diego, CA, USA.
Boehm, B., and A. Jain. 2006. "A value-based theory of systems engineering." Proceedings of the International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium (IS), July 9-13, 2006, Orlando, FL, USA.
4.0. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04.
MITRE. 2014. Systems Engineering Guide. Bedford, MA, USA. Accessed April 1, 2021. Available at https:/ / www.
mitre.org/publications/technical-papers/the-mitre-systems-engineering-guide.
Parnas, D.L. 1979. "Designing Software for Ease of Extension and Contraction." IEEE Transactions on Software
Primary References
4.0. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04.
Blanchard, B., D. Verma, and E. Peterson. 1995. Maintainability: A Key to Effective Serviceability and Maintenance
Management. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.
Parnas, D.L. 1979. "Designing Software for Ease of Extension and Contraction." IEEE Transactions on Software
Kobren, Bill. 2011. "Supportability as an affordability enabler: A critical fourth element of acquisition success across
the system life cycle." Defense AT&L: Better Buying Power. Accessed April 1, 2021. Available at https:/ / apps. dtic.
mil/sti/citations/ADA564402.
Myers, S.E., P.P. Pandolfini, J.F. Keane, O. Younossi, J.K. Roth, M.J. Clark, D.A. Lehman, and J.A. Dechoretz.
2000. "Evaluating affordability initiatives." Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 21(3): 426–437.
Redman, Q. 2012. "Why affordability is a systems engineering metric." Procedia Computer Science. 8: 376-381.
Elsevier. Accessed April 1, 2021. Available: https:/ / www. sciencedirect. com/ science/ article/ pii/
S1877050912000762.

System Hardware Assurance

Authors: Michael Bear, Donald Davidson, Shawn Fetterolf, Darin Leonhardt, Daniel Radack, Karen Johnson,
Elizabeth A. McDaniel Contributors: Michael Berry, Brian Cohen, Diganta Das, Houman Homayoun, Thomas
McDermott
This article describes the discipline of hardware assurance, especially as it relates to systems engineering. It is part of
the SE and Quality Attributes Knowledge Area.
Overview
System hardware assurance is a set of system security engineering activities (see System Security for more
information) undertaken to quantify and increase the confidence that electronics function as intended and only as
intended throughout their life cycle, and to manage identified risks. The term hardware refers to electronic
components, sometimes called integrated circuits or chips. As products of multi-stage processes involving design,
manufacturing and post-manufacturing, packaging, and test, they must function properly under a wide range of
circumstances. Hardware components – alone and integrated into subcomponents, subsystems, and systems – have
weaknesses and vulnerabilities enabling exploitation. Weaknesses are flaws, bugs, or errors in design, architecture,
code, or implementation. Vulnerabilities are weaknesses that are exploitable in the context of use (Martin 2014).
Hardware assurance is conducted to minimize risks related to hardware that can enable adversarial exploitation and
subversion of functionality, counterfeit production, and loss of technological advantage. Challenges include
increasing levels of sophistication and complexity of hardware architectures, integrated circuits, operating systems,
and application software, combined with supply chain risks, emergence of new attack surfaces, and reliance on
global sources for some components and technologies.
After identifying concerns and applicable mitigations, hardware assurance offers a range of possible activities and
processes. At the component level, hardware assurance focuses on the hardware itself and the supply chain used to
design and manufacture it; at the subcomponent, subsystems, and system levels, hardware assurance incorporates the
software and firmware integrated with the component.
Engineering efforts to enhance trust in hardware have increased in response to complex hardware architectures, the
increasing sophistication of adversarial attacks on hardware, and globalization of supply chains. These factors raise
serious concerns about the security, confidentiality, integrity, and availability as well as the provenance and
authenticity of hardware. The “root of trust” (NIST 2020) of a system is typically contained in the processes, steps,
and layers of hardware components and across the systems engineering development cycle. System hardware
assurance focuses on hardware components and their interconnections with software and firmware to reduce risks to
proper function or other compromises of the hardware throughout the complete life cycle of components and
systems. Advances in hardware assurance tools and techniques will strengthen designs, and enhance assurance
during manufacturing, packaging, test, and deployment and operational use.
Life Cycle Concerns of Hardware Components

Hardware assurance should be applied at various stages of a component’s life cycle from hardware architecture and
design, through manufacturing and testing, and finally throughout its inclusion in a larger system. The need for
hardware assurance then continues throughout its operational life including sustainment and disposal.
As semiconductor technology advances the complexity of electronic components, it increases the need to “bake-in”
assurance. Risks created during architecture, design, and manufacturing are challenging to address during the
operational phase. Risks associated with interconnections between and among chips are also a concern. Therefore,
improving a hardware assurance posture must occur as early as possible in the life cycle, thereby reducing the cost
and schedule impacts associated with “fixing” components later in the life cycle of the system.
A conceptual overview of the typical hardware life cycle (Figure 1) illustrates the phases of the life cycle of
components, as well as the subsystems and systems in which they operate. In each phase multiple parties and
processes contribute a large set of variables and corresponding attack surfaces. As a result, the potential exists for
compromise of the hardware as well as the subcomponents and systems in which they operate; therefore, matching
mitigations should be applied at the time the risks are identified.
Figure 1. Component Life Cycle. (SEBoK Original)
Both the value of the hardware component and the associated cost of mitigating risks increase at each stage of the
life cycle. Therefore, it is important to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities as early as possible. It takes longer to find
and fix defects later, thereby increasing the complexity of replacing hardware with “corrected” designs that create
system integration issues. In addition to cost savings, early correction and mitigation avoid delays in creating an
operational system. It is essential to re-assess risks associated with hardware components throughout the life cycle
periodically, especially as operational conditions change.
Hardware assurance during system sustainment is a novel challenge given legacy hardware and designs with their
associated supply chains. In long-lived high-reliability systems, hardware assurance issues are compounded by
obsolescence and diminished sourcing of components, thereby increasing concerns related to counterfeits and
acquisitions from the gray market.
Function as Intended and Only as Intended

Exhaustive testing can check system functions against specifications and expectations; however, checking for
unintended functions is problematic. Consumers have a reasonable expectation that a purchased product will perform
as advertised and function properly (safely and securely, under specified conditions) – but consumers rarely consider
if additional functions are built into the product. For example, a laptop with a web-conferencing capability comes
with a webcam that will function properly when enabled, but what if the webcam also functions when turned off,
thereby violating expectations of privacy? Given that a state-of-the-art semiconductor component might have billions
of transistors, “hidden” functions might be exploitable by adversaries. The statement “function as intended and only
intended” communicates the need to check for unintended functions.
Hardware specifications and information in the design phase are needed to validate that components function
properly to support systems or missions. If an engineer creates specifications that support assurance that flow down
the system development process, the concept of “function as intended” can be validated for the system and mission
through accepted verification and validation processes. “Function only as intended” is also a consequence of
capturing the requirements and specifications to assure the product is designed and developed without extra
functionality. For example, a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) contains programmable logic that is highly
configurable; however, the programmable circuitry might be susceptible to exploitation.
Given the specifications of a hardware component, specialized tools and processes can be used to determine with a
high degree of confidence whether the component’s performance meets specifications. Research efforts are underway
to develop robust methods to validate that a component does not have capabilities that threaten assurance or that are
not specified in the original design. Although tools and processes can test for known weaknesses, operational
vulnerabilities, and deviations from expected performance, all states of possible anomalous behavior cannot
currently be determined or predicted.
Data and information can be used to validate the component’s function and should be collected from multiple sources
including designers, developers, and members of the user community. Designers and developers can provide deep
understanding of the component’s intended function and provide tests used to verify its functional performance
before fielding. The merging of component design and development information with extensive field data, including
third-party evaluation, contributes to assurance that the component is performing specified functions and that no
unintended functionality is observed.
Risks to Hardware
Modern systems depend on complex microelectronics, but advances in hardware without attention to associated risks
can expose critical systems, their information, and the people who rely on them. “Hardware is evolving rapidly, thus
creating fundamentally new attack surfaces, many of which will never be entirely secured”. (Oberg 2020) Therefore,
it is imperative that risk be modeled through a dynamic risk profile and be mitigated in depth across the entire
profile. Hardware assurance requires extensible mitigations and strategies that can and do evolve as threats do.
Hardware assurance methods seek to quantify and improve confidence that weaknesses that can become
vulnerabilities that create risks are mitigated.
Most hardware components are commercially designed, manufactured, and inserted into larger assemblies by
multi-national companies with global supply chains. Understanding the provenance and participants in complex
global supply chains is fundamental to assessing risks associated with the components.
Operational risks that derive from unintentional or intentional features are differentiated based on the source of the
feature. Three basic operational risk areas related to goods, products, or items are: failure to meet quality standards,
maliciously tainted goods, and counterfeit hardware. Counterfeits are usually offered as legitimate products, but they
are not. They may be refurbished or mock items made to appear as originals, re-marked products, the result of
overproduction, or substandard production parts rejected by the legitimate producer. Counterfeit risks and
substandard quality offer avenues for malware insertion and potential impacts to overall system performance and
availability.
Failure to follow quality standards including safety and security standards, especially in design, can result in
unintentional features or flaws being inadvertently introduced. These can occur through mistakes, omissions, or lack
of understanding how features might be manipulated by future users for nefarious purposes. Features introduced
intentionally for specific purposes can also make the hardware susceptible to espionage or control of the hardware at
some point in its life cycle.
Quantify and Improve Confidence

The quantification of hardware assurance is a key technical challenge because of the complex interplay among
designer, manufacturer and supply chains, and adversarial intent, as well as the challenge of defining “security” with
respect to hardware function. Quantification is necessary to identify and manage hardware risks within program
budgets and timeframes. It enables a determination of the required level of hardware assurance and whether
quantification is achievable throughout the hardware’s life cycle.
Current methods for quantifying hardware assurance are adapted from the fields of quality and reliability
engineering, which use methods like Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). (SAE 2021) FMEA is
semi-quantitative and combines probabilistic hardware failure data and input from experts. Adapting FMEA to
quantify hardware assurance is hampered when it relies on assigning probabilities to human behavior that may be
motivated by money, malicious intent, etc. Expert opinion often varies when quantifying and weighting factors used
in generating risk matrices and scores. In response, recent efforts are attempting to develop quantitative methods that
reduce subjectivity.
Game theoretic analysis (game theory) is the creation of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between
intelligent and rational decision-makers. (Myerson 1991) Models include dynamic, as opposed to static, interactions
between attackers and defenders that can quantify the risks associated with potential interactions among adversaries,
hardware developers, and manufacturing processes. (Eames and Johnson 2017) Creation of the models forces one to
define attack scenarios explicitly and to input detailed knowledge of hardware development and manufacturing
processes. Outputs of the model may include a ranking of the most likely attacks to occur based on cost-benefit
constraints on the attackers and defenders. (Graf 2017) The results can empower decision-makers to make
quantitative trade-off decisions about hardware assurance.
Another quantification method that results in a confidence interval for detecting counterfeit/suspect microelectronics
is presented in the SAE AS6171 standard. (SAE 2016) Confidence is based on knowing the types of defects
associated with counterfeits, and the effectiveness of different tests to detect those defects. Along the same lines, a
standard for hardware assurance might be developed to quantify the confidence interval by testing against a
catalogue of known vulnerabilities, such as those documented in the MITRE Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
(CVE) list. (MITRE 2020)
Distributed ledger technology (DLT) is an example of an emerging technology that could enable a standardized
approach for quantifying hardware assurance attributes such as data integrity, immutability, and traceability. DLT
can be used in conjunction with manufacturing data (such as dimensional measurement, parametric testing, process
monitoring, and defect mapping) to improve tamper resistance using component provenance and traceability data.
DLT also enables new scenarios of cross-organizational data fusion, opening the door to new classes of hardware
integrity checks.
Manage Risks
The selection of specific components for use in subsystems and systems should be the outcome of performance-risk
and cost-benefit trade-off assessments in their intended context of use. The goal of risk management and mitigation
planning is to select mitigations with the best overall operational risk reduction and the lowest cost impact. The
required level of hardware assurance varies with the criticality of a component's use and the system in which it is
used.
During a typical development life cycle of a system – architecture, design, code, and implementation – various types
of problems can pose risks to the operational functionality of the hardware components provided. These risks include
weaknesses or defects that are inadvertent (unintentional), as well as counterfeits that may be either inadvertent or
intentionally injected into the supply chain for financial motivations or malicious components designed to change
functionality.
Managing risk in the context of hardware assurance seeks to decrease the risk of weaknesses that create attack
surfaces that can be exploited, while improving confidence that an implementation resists exploitation. Ideally, risk
management reduces risk and maximizes assurance to an acceptable level. Often, risks are considered in the context
of likelihood of consequences and the costs and effectiveness of mitigations. However, new operationally impactful
risks are recognized continuously over the hardware life cycle and supply chains of components. At the same time
hardware weaknesses are often exploited through software or firmware. Therefore, to maximize assurance and
minimize operationally impactful risks mitigation-in-depth across all constituent components must be considered.
This highlights the need for a dynamic risk profile.

An example of a post-manufacturing mitigation involves a new hardware risk identified during field operation. A
dynamic risk profile can be used to characterize the issue and identify possible resources to address the suspect
component function. This profile can also be used to track and address risks throughout its life, including
obsolescence-related risk. One means of mitigating this kind of hardware life cycle risk is the use of existing
programmable logic.
Just as with software patches and updates, new attack surfaces on hardware may become exposed through the
mitigation being applied, and they will likely take a long time to discover. In the example above, the programmable
logic is updated to provide a new configuration to protect the hardware. In this context, access to hardware
reconfiguration must be limited to authorized parties to prevent an unauthorized update that introduces weaknesses
on purpose or by accident. While programmable logic may have mitigated a specific attack surface or type of
weakness, additional mitigations are needed to minimize risk more completely. This is mitigation-in-depth –
multiple mitigations building upon one another.
Throughout the entire supply chain, critical pieces of information can be inadvertently exposed. The exposure of
such information directly enables the creation and exploitation of new attack surfaces. Therefore, the supply chain
infrastructure must also be assessed for weaknesses, and the development, use, and maintenance of hardware
components assured. The dynamic risk profile offers a framework to balance mitigations in the context of risk and
cost throughout the complete hardware and system life cycles.
References
Works Cited
Eames, B.K. and M.H. Johnson. 2017. “Trust Analysis in FPGA-based Systems.” Proceeding of GOMACTech 2017,
March 20-23, 2017, Reno, NV.
Graf, J. 2017. “OpTrust: Software for Determining Optimal Test Coverage and Strategies for Trust.” Proceedings of
GOMACTech 2017, March 20-23, 2017, Reno, NV.
Martin, R.A. 2014. “Non-Malicious Taint: Bad Hygiene is as Dangerous to the Mission as Malicious Intent.”
CrossTalk Magazine. 27(2).
MITRE. 2020. “Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures.” Last Updated December 11, 2020. Accessed March 31,
2021.Available at https://cve.mitre.org/cve/,
Myerson, R.R. 1991. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
NIST. 2020. Roots of Trust. Last Updated June 22, 2020. Accessed March 31, 2021. Available at https:/ / csrc. nist.
gov/projects/hardware-roots-of-trust.
Oberg, J. 2020. Reducing Hardware Security Risk. Last Updated July 1, 2020. Accessed March 31, 2021. Available
at: https://semiengineering.com/reducing-hardware-security-risk/.
SAE. 2016. SAE AS6171, Test Methods Standard: General Requirements, Suspect/Counterfeit, Electrical,
Electronic, and Electromechanical Parts. SAE International. Accessed March 31, 2021. Available at https:/ / www.
sae.org/standards/content/as6171/.
SAE. 2021. SAE J1739_202101, Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Including Design FMEA,
Supplemental FMEA-MSR, and Process FMEA. SAE International. Last Updated January 13, 2021. Accessed on
March 31, 2021. Available at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1739_202101/.
Primary References
Bhunia, S. and M. Tehranipoor. 2018. Hardware Security: A Hands-on Learning Approach. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
ENISA. 2017. Hardware Threat Landscape and Good Practice Guide. Final Version 1.0. European Union Agency
for Cybersecurity. Accessed March 31, 2021. Available at https:/ / www. enisa. europa. eu/ publications/
hardware-threat-landscape
TAME Steering Committee. 2019. Trusted and Assured Microelectronics Forum Working Group Reports. Last
Updated December 2019. Accessed March 31, 2021. Available at: https:/ / dforte. ece. ufl. edu/ wp-content/ uploads/
sites/65/2020/08/TAME-Report-FINAL.pdf.
DARPA. A DARPA Approach to Trusted Microelectronics. Accessed March 31, 2021. Available at: https:/ / www.
darpa.mil/attachments/Background_FINAL3.pdf [1].
Fazzari, S. and R. Narumi. 2019. New & Old Challenges for Trusted and Assured Microelectronics. Accessed March
31, 2021. Available at: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1076110.pdf.
IEEE. 2008-2020. IEEE International Symposium on Hardware Oriented Security and Trust (HOST). Annual
symposium held since 2008 providing wealth of articles on hardware assurance.
Martin, R. 2019. "Hardware Assurance and Weakness Collaboration and Sharing (HAWCS)." Proceedings of the
2019 Software and Supply Chain Assurance Forum, September 17-18, 2019 in McLean, VA. Accessed March 31,
2021. Available at https:/ / csrc. nist. gov/ CSRC/ media/ Projects/ cyber-supply-chain-risk-management/ documents/
SSCA/Fall_2019/WedPM2.2_Robert_Martin.pdf.
NDIA. 2017. Trusted Microelectronics Joint Working Group: Team 3 White Paper: Trustable Microelectronics
Standard Products. Accessed March 31, 2021. Available at https:/ / www. ndia. org/ -/ media/ sites/ ndia/ divisions/
working-groups/tmjwg-documents/ndia-tm-jwg-team-3-white-paper-finalv3.ashx.
Regenscheid, A. 2019. NIST SP 800-193, Platform Firmware Resiliency Guidelines. Accessed March 31,
2021.Available at https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-193/final.
Ross, R., V. Pillitteri, R. Graubart, D. Bodeau, R. McQuaid. 2019. NIST SP 800-160 Vol. 2, Developing Cyber
Resilient Systems – A Systems Security Engineering Approach. Accessed March 31, 2021. Available at: https:/ / csrc.
nist.gov/News/2019/sp-800-160-vol2-developing-cyber-resilient-systems.

References
[1] https:/ / www. darpa. mil/ / about-us/ darpa-approach-to-trusted-microelectronics
System Reliability, Availability, and

Maintainability
Lead Authors: Paul Phister, David Olwell
Reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM) are three system attributes that are of tremendous interest to
systems engineers, logisticians, and users. They are often studied together. Collectively, they affect economic
life-cycle costs of a system and its utility.
Overview
Reliability, maintainability, and availability (RAM) are three system attributes that are of great interest to systems
engineers, logisticians, and users. Collectively, they affect both the utility and the life-cycle costs of a product or
system. The origins of contemporary reliability engineering can be traced to World War II. The discipline’s first
concerns were electronic and mechanical components. (Ebeling 2010) However, current trends point to a dramatic
rise in the number of industrial, military, and consumer products with integrated computing functions. Because of the
rapidly increasing integration of computers into products and systems used by consumers, industry, governments,
and the military, reliability must consider both hardware, and software.
Maintainability models present some interesting challenges. The time to repair an item is the sum of the time
required for evacuation, diagnosis, assembly of resources (parts, bays, tool, and mechanics), repair, inspection, and
return. Administrative delay (such as holidays) can also affect repair times. Often these sub-processes have a
minimum time to complete that is not zero, resulting in the distributions used to model maintainability having a
threshold parameter.
A threshold parameter is defined as the minimum probable time to repair. Estimation of maintainability can be
further complicated by queuing effects, resulting in times to repair that are not independent. This dependency
frequently makes analytical solution of problems involving maintainability intractable and promotes the use of
simulation to support analysis.
System Description
This section sets forth basic definitions, briefly describes probability distributions, and then discusses the role of
RAM engineering during system development and operation. The final subsection lists the more common reliability
test methods that span development and operation.
Basic Definitions
Reliability
Reliability is defined as the probability of a product performing its intended function under stated conditions without
failure for a given period of time. (ASQ 2022) A precise definition must include a detailed description of the
function, the environment, the time scale, and what constitutes a failure. Each can be surprisingly difficult to define
precisely.
Maintainability
The probability that a given maintenance action for an item under given usage conditions can be performed within a
stated time interval when the maintenance is performed under stated conditions using stated procedures and
resources. Maintainability has two categories: serviceability (the ease of conducting scheduled inspections and
servicing) and repairability (the ease of restoring service after a failure). (ASQ 2022)
Availability
Defined as the probability that a repairable system or system element is operational at a given point in time under a
given set of environmental conditions. Availability depends on reliability and maintainability and is discussed in
detail later in this topic. (ASQ 2011)
Failure
A failure is the event(s), or inoperable state, in which any item or part of an item does not, or would not, perform as
specified. (GEIA 2008) The failure mechanism is the physical, chemical, electrical, thermal, or other process that
results in failure (GEIA 2008). In computerized systems, a software defect or fault can be the cause of a failure
(Laprie 1992) which may have been preceded by an error which was internal to the item. The failure mode is the way
or the consequence of the mechanism through which an item fails. (GEIA 2008, Laprie 1992) The severity of the
failure mode is the magnitude of its impact. (Laprie 1992)
Probability Distributions used in Reliability Analysis

Reliability can be thought of as the probability of the survival of a component until time t. Its complement is the
probability of failure before or at time t. If we define a random variable T as the time to failure, then:
where R(t) is the reliability and F(t) is the failure probability. The failure probability is the cumulative distribution
function (CDF) of a mathematical probability distribution. Continuous distributions used for this purpose include
exponential, Weibull, log-normal, and generalized gamma. Discrete distributions such as the Bernoulli, Binomial,
and Poisson are used for calculating the expected number of failures or for single probabilities of success.
The same continuous distributions used for reliability can also be used for maintainability although the interpretation
is different (i.e., probability that a failed component is restored to service prior to time t). However, predictions of
maintainability may have to account for processes such as administrative delays, travel time, sparing, and staffing
and can therefore be extremely complex.
The probability distributions used in reliability and maintainability estimation are referred to as models because they
only provide estimates of the true failure and restoration of the items under evaluation. Ideally, the values of the
parameters used in these models would be estimated from life testing or operating experience. However, performing
such tests or collecting credible operating data once items are fielded can be costly. Therefore, approximations
sometimes use data from “similar systems”, “engineering judgment”, and other methods. As a result, those estimates
based on limited data may be very imprecise. Testing methods to gather such data are discussed below.
RAM Considerations during Systems Development

RAM are inherent product or system attributes that should be considered throughout the development lifecycle.
Reliability standards, textbook authors, and others have proposed multiple development process models. (O’Connor
2014, Kapur 2014, Ebeling 2010, DoD 2005) The discussion in this section relies on a standard developed by a joint
effort by the Electronic Industry Association and the U.S. Government and adopted by the U.S. Department of
Defense (GEIA 2008) that defines 4 processes: understanding user requirements and constraints, design for
reliability, production for reliability, and monitoring during operation and use (discussed in the next section).
Understanding User Requirements and Constraints

Understanding user requirements involves eliciting information about functional requirements, constraints (e.g.,
mass, power consumption, spatial footprint, life cycle cost), and needs that correspondent to RAM requirements.
From these emerge system requirements that should include specifications for reliability, maintainability, and
availability, and each should be conditioned on the projected operating environments. RAM requirements definition
is as challenging but as essential to development success as the definition of general functional requirements.
Design for Reliability

System designs based on user requirements and system design alternatives can then be formulated and evaluated.
Reliability engineering during this phase seeks to increase system robustness through measures such as redundancy,
diversity, built-in testing, advanced diagnostics, and modularity to enable rapid physical replacement. In addition, it
may be possible to reduce failure rates through measures such as use of higher strength materials, increasing the
quality components, moderating extreme environmental conditions, or shortened maintenance, inspection, or
overhaul intervals. Design analyses may include mechanical stress, corrosion, and radiation analyses for mechanical
components, thermal analyses for mechanical and electrical components, and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)
analyses or measurements for electrical components and subsystems.
In most computer-based systems, hardware mean time between failures are hundreds of thousands of hours so that
most system design measures to increase system reliability are focused on software. The most obvious way to
improve software reliability is by improving its quality through more disciplined development efforts and tests.
Methods for doing so are in the scope of software engineering but not in the scope of this section. However,
reliability and availability can also be increased through architectural redundancy, independence, and diversity.
Redundancy must be accompanied by measures to ensure data consistency, and managed failure detection and
switchover. Within the software architecture, measures such as watchdog timers, flow control, data integrity checks
(e.g., hashing or cyclic redundancy checks), input and output validity checking, retries, and restarts can increase
reliability and failure detection coverage (Shooman 2002).
System RAM characteristics should be continuously evaluated as the design progresses. Where failure rates are not
known (as is often the case for unique or custom developed components, assemblies, or software), developmental
testing may be undertaken to assess the reliability of custom-developed components. Evaluations based on
quantitative analyses assess the numerical reliability and availability of the system and are usually based on
reliability block diagrams, fault trees, Markov models, and Petri nets. (O’Connor 2011) Markov models and Petri
nets are of particular value for computer-based systems that use redundancy. Evaluations based on qualitative
analyses assess vulnerability to single points of failure, failure containment, recovery, and maintainability. The
primary qualitative methods are the failure mode effects and criticality analyses (FMECA). (Kececioglu 1991) The
development program Discrepancy Reporting (DR) or Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System (FRACAS)
should also be used to identify failure modes which may not have been anticipated by the FMECA and to identify
common problems that can be corrected through an improved design or development process.
Analyses from related disciplines during design time also affect RAM. Human factor analyses are necessary to
ensure that operators and maintainers can interact with the system in a manner that minimizes failures and the
restoration times when they occur. There is also a strong link between RAM and cybersecurity in computer-based
systems. On the one hand, defensive measures reduce the frequency of failures due to malicious events. On the other
hand, devices such as firewalls, policy enforcement devices, and access/authentication serves (also known as
“directory servers”) can also become single points of failure or performance bottlenecks that reduce system reliability
and availability.
Production for Reliability

Many production issues associated with RAM are related to quality. The most important of these are ensuring
repeatability and uniformity of production processes and complete unambiguous specifications for items from the
supply chain. Other are related to design for manufacturability, storage, and transportation. (Kapur 2014; Eberlin
2010) Large software intensive information systems are affected by issues related to configuration management,
integration testing, and installation testing. Testing and recording of failures in the problem reporting and corrective
action systems (PRACAS) or the FRACAS capture data on failures and improvements to correct failures. Depending
on organizational considerations, this may be the same or a separate system as used during the design.
Monitoring During Operation and Use

After systems are fielded, their reliability and availability are monitored to assess whether the system or product has
met its RAM objectives, identify unexpected failure modes, record fixes, and assess the utilization of maintenance
resources and the operating environment. The FRACAS or a maintenance management database may be used for this
purpose. In order to assess RAM, it is necessary to maintain an accurate record not only of failures but also of
operating time and the duration of outages. Systems that report only on repair actions and outage incidents may not
be sufficient for this purpose.
An organization should have an integrated data system that allows reliability data to be considered with logistical
data, such as parts, personnel, tools, bays, transportation and evacuation, queues, and costs, allowing a total
awareness of the interplay of logistical and RAM issues. These issues in turn must be integrated with management
and operational systems to allow the organization to reap the benefits that can occur from complete situational
awareness with respect to RAM.
Reliability and Maintainability Testing

Reliability Testing can be performed at the component, subsystem, and system level throughout the product or
system lifecycle. Examples of hardware related categories of reliability testing are detailed in Ebeling (2010) and
O’Connor (2014).
• Reliability Life Tests: Reliability life tests are used to empirically assess the time to failure for non-repairable
products and systems and the times between failure for repairable or restorable systems. Termination criteria for
such tests can be based on a planned duration or planned number of failures. Methods to account for “censoring”
of the failures or the surviving units enable a more accurate estimate of reliability. (Meeker, Escobar, Pascual
2022)
• Accelerated Life Tests: Accelerated life testing is performed by subjecting the items under test (usually
electronic parts) to increased stress well above the expecting operating range and extrapolating results using
model such as an Arrhenius relation (temperature acceleration), inverse power law (voltage), or a cumulative
damage model (non-constant stress). (Meeker, Escobar, Pascual 2022)
• Highly Accelerated Life Testing/Highly Accelerated Stress Testing (HALT/HASS): is performed by
subjecting units under test (components or subassemblies) to extreme temperature and vibration tests with the
objective of identifying failure modes, margins, and design weaknesses.
• Parts Screening: Parts screening is not really a test but a procedure to operate components for a duration beyond
the “infant mortality” period during which less durable items fail and the more durable parts that remain are then
assembled into the final product or system. This is also known as "burn-in."
• System Level Testing: Examples of system level testing (including both hardware and software) are detailed in
O’Connor (2014) and Ebeling (2010).
• Stability Tests: Stability tests are life tests for integrated hardware and software systems. The goal of such testing
is to determine the integrated system failure rate and assess operational suitability. Test conditions must include
accurate simulation of the operating environment (including workload) and a means of identifying and recording
failures.
• Reliability Growth Tests: Reliability growth testing is part of a reliability growth program in which items are
tested throughout the development and early production cycle with the intent of assessing reliability increases due
to improvements in the manufacturing process (for hardware) or software quality (for software). Also known as
"Test-Analyze-And-Fix (TAAF)." (NRC 2015)
• Failure/Recovery Tests: Such testing assesses the fault tolerance of a system by measuring probability of
switchover for redundant systems. Failures are simulated and the ability of the hardware and software to detect
the condition and reconfigure the system to remain operational are tested.
• Maintainability Tests: Such testing assesses the system diagnostics capabilities, physical accessibility, and
maintainer training by simulating hardware or software failures that require maintainer action for restoration.
Because of its potential impact on cost and schedule, reliability testing should be coordinated with the overall system
engineering effort. Test planning considerations include the number of test units, duration of the tests, environmental
conditions, and the means of detecting failures.
Data Issues
True RAM models for a system are generally never known. Data on a given system is assumed or collected, used to
select a distribution for a model, and then used to fit the parameters of the distribution. This process differs
significantly from the one usually taught in an introductory statistics course.
First, the normal distribution is seldom used as a life distribution, since it is defined for all negative times. Second,
and more importantly, reliability data is different from classic experimental data. Reliability data is often censored,
biased, observational, and missing information about covariates such as environmental conditions. Data from testing
is often expensive, resulting in small sample sizes. These problems with reliability data require sophisticated
strategies and processes to mitigate them.
One consequence of these issues is that estimates based on limited data can be and usually are very imprecise.
In most large programs, RAM experts report to the system engineering organization. At project or product
conception, top level goals are defined for RAM based on operational needs, lifecycle cost projections, and warranty
cost estimates. These lead to RAM derived requirements and allocations that are approved and managed by the
system engineering requirements management function. RAM testing is coordinated with other product or system
testing through the testing organization, and test failures are evaluated by the RAM function through joint meetings
such as a Failure Review Board. In some cases, the RAM function may recommend design or development process
changes as a result of evaluation of test results or software discrepancy reports, and these proposals must be
adjudicated by the system engineering organization, or in some cases, the acquiring customer if cost increases are
involved.
Post-Production Management Systems

Once a system is fielded, its reliability and availability should be tracked. Doing so allows the producer/owner to
verify that the design has met its RAM objectives, to identify unexpected failure modes, to record fixes, to assess the
utilization of maintenance resources, and to assess the operating environment.
One such tracking system is generically known as a FRACAS system (Failure Reporting and Corrective Action
System). Such a system captures data on failures and improvements to correct failures. This database is separate
from a warranty database, which is typically run by the financial function of an organization and tracks costs only.
A FRACAS for an organization is a system, and itself should be designed following systems engineering principles.
In particular, a FRACAS system supports later analyses, and those analyses impose data requirements.
Unfortunately, the lack of careful consideration of the backward flow from decision to analysis to model to required
data too often leads to inadequate data collection systems and missing essential information. Proper prior planning
prevents this poor performance.
Of particular importance is a plan to track data on units that have not failed. Units whose precise times of failure are
unknown are referred to as censored units. Inexperienced analysts frequently do not know how to analyze censored
data, and they omit the censored units as a result. This can bias an analysis.
An organization should have an integrated data system that allows reliability data to be considered with logistical
data, such as parts, personnel, tools, bays, transportation and evacuation, queues, and costs, allowing a total
awareness of the interplay of logistical and RAM issues. These issues in turn must be integrated with management
and operational systems to allow the organization to reap the benefits that can occur from complete situational
awareness with respect to RAM.
Interactions
RAM interacts with nearly all aspects of the system development effort. Specific dependencies and interactions
include:
• Systems Engineering: RAM interacts with systems engineering as described in the previous section.
• Product Management (Life Cycle Cost and Warranty): RAM interacts with the product or system lifecycle
cost and warranty management organizations by assisting in the calculation of expected repair rates, downtimes,
and warranty costs. RAM may work with those organizations to perform tradeoff analyses to determine the most
cost-efficient solution and to price service contracts.
• Quality Assurance: RAM may also interact with the procurement and quality assurance organizations with
respect to selection and evaluation of materials, components, and subsystems.
Dependencies
• Systems Safety: RAM and system safety engineers have many common concerns with respect to managing the
failure behavior of a system (i.e., single points of failure and failure propagation). RAM and safety engineers use
similar analysis techniques, with safety being concerned about failures affecting life or unique property and RAM
being concerned with those failures as well as lower severity events that disrupt operations. RAM and system
safety are both concerned with failures occurring during development and test – FRACAS is the primary
methodology used for RAM; hazard tracking is the methodology used for system safety.
• Cybersecurity: In systems or products integrating computers and software, cybersecurity and RAM engineers
have common concerns relating to the availability of cyber defenses and system event monitoring. However, there
are also tradeoffs with respect to access control, boundary devices, and authentication where security device
failures could impact the availability of the product or system to users.
• Software and Hardware Engineering: Design and RAM engineers have a common goal of creating dependable
products and systems. RAM interacts with the software and hardware reliability functions through design
analyses such as failure modes and effects analyses, reliability predictions, thermal analyses, reliability
measurement, and component specific analyses. RAM may recommend design changes as a result of these
analyses that may have to be adjudicated by program management, the customer, or systems engineering if there
are cost or schedule impacts.
• Testing: RAM interacts with the testing program during planning to assess the most efficient (or feasible) test
events to perform life testing, failure/recovery testing, and stability testing as well as to coordinate requirements
for reliability or stress tests. RAM also interacts with the testing organization to assess test results and analyze
failures for the implications on product or system RAM.
• Logistics: RAM works with logistics in providing expected failure rates and downtime constraints in order for
logistics engineers to determine staffing, sparing, and special maintenance equipment requirements.
Because of the importance of reliability, availability, and maintainability, as well as related attributes, there are
hundreds of standards associated. Some are general but more are specific to domains such as automotive, aviation,
electric power distribution, nuclear energy, rail transportation, software, etc.Standards are produced by both
governmental agencies, professional associations and international standards bodies such as:
• The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Geneva, Switzerland and the closely associated
International Standards Organization (ISO)
• The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), New York, NY, USA
• The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale, PA, USA
• Governmental Agencies – primarily in military and space systems
The following table lists selected standards from each of these agencies. Because of differences in domains and
because many standards handle the same topic in slightly different ways, selection of the appropriate standards
requires consideration of previous practices (often documented as contractual requirements), domain specific
considerations, certification agency requirements, end user requirements (if different from the acquisition or
producing organization), and product or system characteristics.
Table 1. Selected Reliability, Availability, Maintainability standards (SEBoK Original)

Organization Number, Title, and Year Domain Comment
IEC IEC 60812, Analysis techniques for system reliability - General

Procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), 2006
IEC General
IEC 61703 Ed 2.0, Mathematical expressions for reliability,
availability, maintainability and maintenance support terms
[1]
, 2016
IEC IEC 62308, Equipment reliability - Reliability assessment General

methods, 2006
IEC IEC 62347, Guidance on system dependability specifications, General

2006
IEC IEC 62278, Railway applications – Specification and Railways

demonstration of reliability, availability, maintainability and
safety (RAMS), 2002
IEEE Nuclear
IEEE Std 352-2016, IEEE Guide for General Principles of
Energy
Reliability Analysis of Nuclear Power Generating Station
[2]
Safety Systems and Other Nuclear Facilities , 2016
IEEE IEEE Std 1044-2009, IEEE Standard Classification for Software

Software Anomalies, 2009
IEEE Software
IEEE Std 1633-2008, IEEE Recommended Practice on
[3]
Software Reliability , 2016
SAE ARP 4754A, Guidelines for the Development of Civil Aircraft Aviation
and Systems, 2010
SAE Aviation
ARP 5890B, Guidelines for Preparing Reliability
[4]
AssessmentPlans for Electronic Engine Controls , 2018
SAE General
J2940_202002, Use of Model Verification and Validation in
[5]
Product Reliability and Confidence Assessments , 2020
SAE General Used by the U.S. Dept. of Defense as the primary

SAE-GEIA-STD-0009A, Reliability Program Standard for
[6] reliability standard (replaces MIL-STD-785B)
SystemsDesign, Development, and Manufacturing , 2020
SAE [7] Software

JA 1002_201205, Software Reliability Program Standard ,
2012
U.S. NASA-STD-8729.1A, Planning, Developing and Managing an Space

Government [8]
Effective Reliability And Maintainability (R&M) Program , Systems
2017
U.S. Defense
MIL HDBK 470A, Designing and Developing Maintainable
Government [9] Systems
Products and Systems , 1997
U.S. Defense Although formally titled a “Handbook” and more

MIL HDBK 217F (Notice 2), Reliability Prediction of
Government [10] Systems than 2 decades old, the values and methods constitute
Electronic Equipment , 1995
a de facto standard for some U.S. military
acquisitions
U.S. The parent of FMEA standards produced by the

MIL-STD-1629A (Notice 3), Procedures for Performing a
Government IEEE, SAE, ISO, and many other agencies. Still
Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis -Revision A
[11] valid and in use after 4 decades.
, 1998
Becoming a reliability engineer requires education in probability and statistics as well as the specific engineering
domain of the product or system under development or in operation. A number of universities throughout the world
have departments of reliability engineering (which also address maintainability and availability) and more have
research groups and courses in reliability and safety – often within the context of another discipline such as
computer science, systems engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, or bioengineering. Because most
academic engineering programs do not have a full reliability department, most engineers working in reliability have
been educated in other disciplines and acquire the additional skills through additional coursework or by working
with other qualified engineers. A certification in reliability engineering [12] is available from the American Society
for Quality (ASQ 2016). However, only a minority of engineers working in the discipline have this certification.
Metrics
The three basic metrics of RAM are (not surprisingly) Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability. Reliability can
be characterized in terms of the parameters, mean, or any percentile of a reliability distribution. However, in most
cases, the exponential distribution is used, and a single value, the mean time to failure (MTTF) for non-restorable
systems, or mean time between failures (MTBF for restorable systems are used). The metric is defined as:
where is the total operating time and is the number of failures.

Maintainability is often characterized in terms of the exponential distribution and the mean time to repair and be
similarly calculated, i.e.,
Where is the total down time and is the number of outages.

As was noted above, accounting for downtime requires definitions and specificity. Down time might be counted only
for corrective maintenance actions, or it may include both corrective and preventive maintenance actions. Where the
lognormal rather than the exponential distribution is used, a mean down time can still be calculated, but both the log
of the downtimes and the variance must be known in order to fully characterize maintainability. Availability can be
calculated from the total operating time and the downtime, or in the alternative, as a function of MTBF and MTTR
(Mean Time To Repair.)
As was the case with maintainability, availability may be qualified as to whether it includes only unplanned failures
and repairs (inherent availability) or downtime due to all causes including administrative delays, staffing outages, or
spares inventory deficiencies (operational availability).
Probabilistic metrics describe system performance for RAM. Quantiles, means, and modes of the distributions used
to model RAM are also useful.
Availability has some additional definitions, characterizing what downtime is counted against a system. For
inherent availability, only downtime associated with corrective maintenance counts against the system. For
achieved availability, downtime associated with both corrective and preventive maintenance counts against a
system. Finally, operational availability counts all sources of downtime, including logistical and administrative,
against a system.
Availability can also be calculated instantaneously, averaged over an interval, or reported as an asymptotic value.
Asymptotic availability can be calculated easily, but care must be taken to analyze whether or not a system settles
down or settles up to the asymptotic value, as well as how long it takes until the system approaches that asymptotic
value.
Reliability importance measures the effect on the system reliability of a small improvement in a component’s
reliability. It is defined as the partial derivative of the system reliability with respect to the reliability of a component.
Criticality is the product of a component’s reliability, the consequences of a component failure, and the frequency
with which a component failure results in a system failure. Criticality is a guide to prioritizing reliability
improvement efforts.
Many of these metrics cannot be calculated directly because the integrals involved are intractable. They are usually
estimated using simulation.
Models
There are a wide range of models that estimate and predict reliability (Meeker, Escobar, Pascual 2022). Simple
models, such as exponential distribution, can be useful for “back of the envelope” calculations.
System models are used to (1) combine probabilities or their surrogates, failure rates and restoration times, at the
component level to find a system level probability or (2) to evaluate a system for maintainability, single points of
failure, and failure propagation. The three most common are reliability block diagrams, fault trees, and failure modes
and effects analyses.
There are more sophisticated probability models used for life data analysis. These are best characterized by their
failure rate behavior, which is defined as the probability that a unit fails in the next small interval of time, given it
has lived until the beginning of the interval, and divided by the length of the interval.
Models can be considered for a fixed environmental condition. They can also be extended to include the effect of
environmental conditions on system life. Such extended models can in turn be used for accelerated life testing
(ALT), where a system is deliberately and carefully overstressed to induce failures more quickly. The data is then
extrapolated to usual use conditions. This is often the only way to obtain estimates of the life of highly reliable
products in a reasonable amount of time. (Nelson 1990)
Also useful are degradation models, where some characteristic of the system is associated with the propensity of
the unit to fail (Nelson 1990). As that characteristic degrades, we can estimate times of failure before they occur.
The initial developmental units of a system often do not meet their RAM specifications. Reliability growth models
allow estimation of resources (particularly testing time) necessary before a system will mature to meet those goals.
(Meeker, Escobar, and Pascual 2022, NRC 2015)
Maintainability models describe the time necessary to return a failed repairable system to service. They are usually
the sum of a set of models describing different aspects of the maintenance process (e.g., diagnosis, repair, inspection,
reporting, and evacuation). These models often have threshold parameters, which are minimum times until an event
can occur.
Logistical support models attempt to describe flows through a logistics system and quantify the interaction between
maintenance activities and the resources available to support those activities. Queue delays, in particular, are a major
source of down time for a repairable system. A logistical support model allows one to explore the trade space
between resources and availability.
All these models are abstractions of reality, and so at best approximations to reality. To the extent they provide
useful insights, they are still very valuable. The more complicated the model, the more data necessary to estimate it
precisely. The greater the extrapolation required for a prediction, the greater the imprecision.
Extrapolation is often unavoidable, because high reliability equipment typically can have long life and the amount of
time required to observe failures may exceed test times. This requires strong assumptions be made about future life
(such as the absence of masked failure modes) and that these assumptions increase uncertainty about predictions.
The uncertainty introduced by strong model assumptions is often not quantified and presents an unavoidable risk to
the system engineer.
There are many ways to characterize the reliability of a system, including fault trees, reliability block diagrams, and
failure mode effects analysis.
A Fault Tree (Kececioglu 1991) is a graphical representation of the failure modes of a system. It is constructed
using logical gates, with AND, OR, NOT, and K of N gates predominating. Fault trees can be complete or partial; a
partial fault tree focuses on a failure mode or modes of interest. They allow “drill down” to see the dependencies of
systems on nested systems and system elements. Fault trees were pioneered by Bell Labs in the 1960s.
A Failure Mode Effects Analysis is a table that lists the possible failure modes for a system, their likelihood, and the
effects of the failure. A Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis scores the effects by the magnitude of the product
of the consequence and likelihood, allowing ranking of the severity of failure modes. (Kececioglu 1991)
Figure 1. Fault Tree. (SEBoK Original)
A Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) (DOD, 1998) is a graphical representation of the reliability dependence of a
system on its components. It is a directed, acyclic graph. Each path through the graph represents a subset of system
components. As long as the components in that path are operational, the system is operational. Component lives are
usually assumed to be independent in an RBD. Simple topologies include a series system, a parallel system, a k of n
system, and combinations of these.
RBDs are often nested, with one RBD serving as a component in a higher-level model. These hierarchical models
allow the analyst to have the appropriate resolution of detail while still permitting abstraction.
RBDs depict paths that lead to success, while fault trees depict paths that lead to failure.
Figure 2. Simple Reliability Block Diagram. (SEBoK Original)
A Failure Mode Effects Analysis is a table that lists the possible failure modes for a system, their likelihood, and
the effects of the failure. A Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis scores the effects by the magnitude of the
product of the consequence and likelihood, allowing ranking of the severity of failure modes. (Kececioglu 1991)
System models require even more data to fit them well. “Garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO) particularly applies in the
case of system models.
Tools
The specialized analyses required for RAM drive the need for specialized software. While general purpose statistical
languages or spreadsheets can, with sufficient effort, be used for reliability analysis, almost every serious practitioner
uses specialized software.
Minitab (versions 13 and later) includes functions for life data analysis. Win Smith is a specialized package that fits
reliability models to life data and can be extended for reliability growth analysis and other analyses. Relex has an
extensive historical database of component reliability data and is useful for estimating system reliability in the design
phase.
There is also a suite of products from ReliaSoft (2007) that is useful in specialized analyses. Weibull++ fits life
models to life data. ALTA fits accelerated life models to accelerated life test data. BlockSim models system
reliability, given component data.
Discipline Specific Tool Families

Reliasoft [13] and PTC Windchill Product Risk and Reliability [14] produce a comprehensive family of tools for
component reliability prediction, system reliability predictions (both reliability block diagrams and fault trees),
reliability growth analysis, failure modes and effects analyses, FRACAS databases, and other specialized analyses.
In addition to these comprehensive tool families, there are more narrowly scoped tools. Minitab (versions 13 and
later) includes functions for life data analysis.
General Purpose Statistical Analysis Software with Reliability Support

Some general-purpose statistical analysis software includes functions for reliability data analysis. Minitab [15] has a
module for reliability and survival analysis. SuperSmith [16] is a more specialized package that fits reliability models
to life data and can be extended for reliability growth analysis and other analyses.
R [17] is a widely used open source and well-supported general purpose statistical language with specialized
packages that can be used for fitting reliability models, Bayesian analysis, and Markov modeling.
Special Purpose Analysis Tools

Fault tree generation and analysis tools include CAFTA [18] from the Electric Power Research Institute and
OpenFTA [19] , an open source software tool originally developed by Auvation Software.
PRISM [20] is an open source probabilistic model checker that can be used for Markov modeling (both continuous
and discrete time) as well as for more elaborate analyses of system (more specifically, “timed automata”) behaviors
such as communication protocols with uncertainty.
References
Works Cited
American Society for Quality (ASQ). 2022. Glossary: Reliability. Accessed on May 9, 2022. Available at http:/ /
asq.org/glossary/r.html.
American Society for Quality (ASQ). 2016. Reliability Engineering Certification – CRE. Accessed May 9, 2022.
Available at http://asq.org/cert/reliability-engineer.
DoD. 2005. DOD Guide for Achieving Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability. Arlington, VA, USA: U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD). Accessed on May 9, 2022. Available at https:/ / www. acqnotes. com/ Attachments/
DoD%20Reliability%20Availability%20and%20Maintainability%20(RAM)%20Guide.pdf
Ebeling, C.E., 2010. An Introduction to Reliability and Maintainability Engineering. Long Grove Illinois, U.S.A:
Waveland Press.
GEIA. 2008. Reliability Program Standard for Systems Design, Development, and Manufacturing. Warrendale, PA,
USA: Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), SAE-GEIA-STD-0009.
IEEE. 2008. IEEE Recommended Practice on Software Reliability. New York, NY, USA: Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE). IEEE Std 1633-2008.
Kececioglu, D. 1991. Reliability Engineering Handbook, Volume 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Laprie, J.C., A. Avizienis, and B. Randell. 1992. Dependability: Basic Concepts and Terminology. Vienna, Austria:
Springer-Verlag.
Meeker, W., Escobar, L., and Pascual, F. 2022 Statistical Methods for Reliability Data. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Nelson, W. 1990. Accelerated Testing: Statistical Models, Test Plans, and Data Analysis. New York, NY, USA:
Wiley and Sons.
NRC. 2015. Reliability Growth: Enhancing Defense System Reliability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Access May 25, 2023. Available at https:/ / nap. nationalacademies. org/ catalog/ 18987/
reliability-growth-enhancing-defense-system-reliability.
O’Connor, D.T., and A. Kleyner. 2012. Practical Reliability Engineering, 5th Edition. Chichester, UK: J. Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
ReliaSoft. 2007. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis
(FMECA). Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at http://www.weibull.com/basics/fmea.htm.
Shooman, Martin. 2002. Reliability of Computer Systems and Networks. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Primary References
Blischke, W.R. and D.N. Prabhakar Murthy. 2000. Reliability Modeling, Prediction, and Optimization. New York,
NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.
Dezfuli, H, D. Kelly, C. Smith, K. Vedros, and W. Galyean. 2009. “Bayesian Inference for NASA Risk and
Reliability Analysis”, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA/SP-2009-569. Accessed on May 25,
2023. Available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090023159.
DoD. 2005. DOD Guide for Achieving Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability. Arlington, VA, USA: U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD). Accessed September 11, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. acq. osd. mil/ se/ docs/
RAM_Guide_080305.pdf.
Kececioglu, D. 1991. Reliability Engineering Handbook, Volume 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Lawless, J.F. 1982. Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.
Lyu, M. 1996. ‘’Software Reliability Engineering’’. New York, NY: IEEE-Wiley Press. Accessed May 9, 2022.
Available at http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~lyu/book/reliability/index.html.
Martz, H.F. and R.A. Waller. 1991. Bayesian Reliability Analysis. Malabar, FL, USA: Kreiger.
[21]
Meeker, W., Escobar, L., and Pascual, F. 2022 Statistical Methods for Reliability Data . 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
[22]
NRC. 2015. Reliability Growth: Enhancing Defense System Reliability . Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
DoD. 2011. ‘’MIL-HDBK-189C, Department of Defense Handbook: Reliability Growth Management (14 JUN
2011).’’ Arlington, VA, USA: U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at http:/ /
everyspec.com/MIL-HDBK/MIL-HDBK-0099-0199/MIL-HDBK-189C_34842.
DOD. 1998. ‘’MIL-HDBK-338B, Electronic Reliability Design Handbook’’ U.S. Department of Defense Air Force
Research Laboratory IFTB. Accessed May 9, 2022.Available at http:/ / www. weibull. com/ mil_std/
mil_hdbk_338b.pdf.
U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center Carderock Division, NSWC-11. ‘’Handbook of Reliability Prediction
Procedures for Mechanical Equipment.’’ Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at http:/ / everyspec. com/ USN/ NSWC/
download.php?spec=NSWC-10_RELIABILITY_HDBK_JAN2010.045818.pdf.
IEEE. 2013. IEEE Recommended Practice for Collecting Data for Use in Reliability, Availability, and
Maintainability Assessments of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems, IEEE Std 3006.9-2013. New York, NY,
USA: IEEE.
NIST/SEMATECH Engineering Statistics Handbook 2013. Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at http://www.itl.nist.
gov/div898/handbook/.
Olwell, D.H. 2001. "Reliability Leadership." Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Reliability and Maintainability
Symposium. Philadelphia, PA, USA: IEEE. Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at https:/ / ieeexplore. ieee. org/ stamp/
stamp.jsp?arnumber=902431.
Reliability Analytics Toolkit. n.d. web page containing 31 reliability and statistical analyses calculation aids.
Seymour Morris, Reliability Analytics. Accessed May 9, 2022. A.vailable at http:/ / reliabilityanalyticstoolkit.
appspot.com/
ReliaSoft. 2007. "Availability." Accessed May 9, 2022. Available at http:/ / reliawiki. com/ index. php/
Introduction_to_Repairable_Systems#Availability.
SAE. 2000a. Aerospace Recommended Practice ARP5580: Recommended Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
(FMEA) Practices for Non-Automobile Applications. Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) International.
SAE. 2000b. Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice J1739: (R) Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in
Design (Design FMEA), Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly Processes
(Process FMEA), and Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Machinery (Machinery FMEA). Warrendale,
PA, USA: Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International.
Relevant Videos
• Availability [23]
• Reliability, Availability [24]

References
[1] https:/ / webstore. ansi. org/ Standards/ IEC/ IEC61703Ed2016
[2] https:/ / standards. ieee. org/ ieee/ 352/ 5453/
[3] https:/ / standards. ieee. org/ ieee/ 1633/ 5726/
[4] https:/ / www. sae. org/ standards/ content/ arp5890b
[5] https:/ / www. sae. org/ standards/ content/ j2940_202002
[6] https:/ / www. sae. org/ standards/ content/ geiastd0009a
[7] https:/ / www. sae. org/ standards/ content/ ja1002_201205
[8] https:/ / s3vi. ndc. nasa. gov/ ssri-kb/ static/ resources/ nasa-std-8729. 1a. pdf
[9] https:/ / www. acqnotes. com/ Attachments/ MIL-HDBK-470A. pdf
[10] http:/ / everyspec. com/ MIL-HDBK/ MIL-HDBK-0200-0299/ download. php?spec=MIL-HDBK-217F_NOTICE-2. 014590. PDF
[11] http:/ / everyspec. com/ MIL-STD/ MIL-STD-1600-1699/ download. php?spec=MIL-STD-1629_NOTICE-3. 023100. pdf
[12] https:/ / asq. org/ cert/ reliability-engineer
[13] http:/ / www. reliasoft. com/ products. htm
[14] http:/ / www. ptc. com/ product-lifecycle-management/ windchill/ product-risk-and-reliability
[15] https:/ / www. minitab. com/ en-us/ products/ minitab/ look-inside/
[16] http:/ / www. barringer1. com/ wins. htm
[17] https:/ / www. r-project. org/
[18] http:/ / teams. epri. com/ RR/ News%20Archives/ CAFTAFactSheet. pdf
[19] http:/ / www. openfta. com/
[20] http:/ / www. prismmodelchecker. org/
[21] https:/ / www. wiley. com/ en-us/ Statistical+ Methods+ for+ Reliability+ Data%2C+ 2nd+ Edition-p-9781118115459
[22] https:/ / nap. nationalacademies. org/ catalog/ 18987/ reliability-growth-enhancing-defense-system-reliability
[23] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=ik-rWLfnajY
[24] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=jznHA-C07dg
System Resilience
Lead Author: John Brtis, Contributing Authors: Scott Jackson, Ken Cureton
Resilience is a relatively new term in the SE realm, appearing only in the 2006 time frame and becoming popularized
in 2010. The recent application of “resilience” to engineered systems has led to confusion over its meaning and a
proliferation of alternative definitions. (One expert claims that well over 100 unique definitions of resilience have
appeared.) While the details of definitions will continue to be discussed and debated, the information here should
provide a working understanding of the meaning and implementation of resilience, sufficient for a system engineer
to effectively address it.
Overview
Definition
According to the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (OED 1973), resilience is “the act of rebounding
or springing back.” This definition most directly fits the situation of materials that return to their original shape after
deformation. For human-made or engineered systems the definition of resilience can be extended to include the
ability to maintain capability in the face of a disruption. The US Department of Homeland Security defines resilience
as "ability of systems, infrastructures, government, business, and citizenry to resist, absorb, recover from, or adapt to
an adverse occurrence that may cause harm, destruction, or loss of national significance." (DHS 2017) Some
practitioners define resilience only to include system reactions following an encounter with an adversity, sometimes
called the reactive perspective. The INCOSE Resilient Systems Working Group (IRSWG) recommends a definition
that includes actions before the encounter with the adversity; this is called the proactive perspective.
The definition recommended by the IRSWG is: resilience is the ability to provide required capability when facing
adversity, as depicted in Figure 1.
<<< FIGURE 1 "General Depiction of Resilience" must be inserted here>>>
Scope of the Means

In applying this definition, one needs to consider the range of means by which resilience is achieved: The means of
achieving resilience include avoiding, withstanding, and recovering from adversity. These may also be considered
the fundamental objectives of resilience (Brtis and McEvilley 2019). Classically, resilience includes “withstanding”
and “recovering” from adversity. For the purpose of engineered systems, “avoiding” adversity is considered a
legitimate means of achieving resilience (Jackson and Ferris 2016). Also, it is believed that resilience should
consider the system’s ability to “evolve and adapt” to future threats and unknown-unknowns.
Scope of the Adversity

Adversity is any condition that may degrade the desired capability of a system. Ideally, the systems engineer should
consider all sources and types of adversity; e.g. from environmental sources, due to normal failure, as well as from
opponents, friendlies and neutral parties. Adversity from human sources may be malicious or accidental. Adversities
may be expected or not. Adversity may include "unknown unknowns." The techniques for achieving resilience
discussed below are applicable to both hostile and non-hostile adversities. Notably, a single incident may be the
result of multiple adversities, such as a human error committed in the attempt to recover from another adversity.
Finally, it is important to recognize that future risks can cause a detrimental strain on the system in the present.
Systems should be designed to be appropriately resilient to emergent risks, just as they are to known issues.
Taxonomy for Achieving Resilience

A taxonomy containing both the fundamental objectives of resilience and the means to achieve them is valuable. It
can help an engineer develop a resilient design. Clemen and Reilly (2001) and Keeney (1992) discuss the importance
of distinguishing fundamental objectives from means objectives and their impact on trades and engineering decision
making. A three-layer objectives-based taxonomy that provides this distinction is discussed below. It includes: first
level, the fundamental objectives of resilience; second level, the means objectives of resilience; and, third level,
architecture, design, and operational techniques for achieving resilience. The three layers are related by
many-to-many relationships. Most taxonomy content came from Brtis (2016), Jackson and Ferris (2013), and
Winsted (2020).
Taxonomy Layer 1: The Fundamental Objectives of Resilience

Fundamental objectives are the first level decomposition of resilience objectives. They establish the scope of
resilience. They identify the values pursued by resilience. They represent an extension of the definition of resilience.
They are ends in themselves rather than just means to other ends. They should be relatively immutable. Being
resilient means achieving three fundamental objectives:
• Avoid: eliminate or reduce exposure to stress
• Withstand: resist capability degradation when stressed
• Recover: replenish lost capability after degradation
These fundamental objectives can be achieved by pursuing means objectives. Means objectives are not ends in
themselves. Their value resides in helping to achieve the three fundamental objectives.
Taxonomy Layer 2: Means Objectives

Next is a set of objectives that are not ends in themselves, but enable achieving the objectives in Layer 1. The
definition shown for each objective is specific to how it is used for resilience and are primarily drawn from
references cited elsewhere in this article and from the IRSWG:
• adaptability/flexibility/agility: ability to react appropriately and dynamically to a situation to avoid degradation
of system capability
• anticipation: awareness of the nature of potential adversities their likely consequences, and appropriate
responses, prior to the adversity stressing the system
• complexity management: leveraging value-added characteristics of complexity, such as emergent behavior,
while suppressing their detracting characteristics
• constrain: limit the propagation of damage within the system
• continuity: endurance of the delivery of required capability, while and after being stressed
• disaggregation: dispersing missions, functions, subsystems, or components across multiple systems or
sub-systems
• evolution: restructuring the system over time to address changes to the adversity of needs
• graceful degradation: ability of the system to transition to desirable states when damaged
• integrity: quality of being complete and unaltered
• prepare: develop and maintain courses of action that address predicted or anticipated adversity
• prevent: deter or preclude the realization of strain on the system
• re-architect: modify the architecture for improved resilience
• redeploy: restructure resources to provide capabilities to recover from degradation of the system
• robustness: damage insensitivity or ability of a structure to withstand adverse and unforeseen events or
consequences of human errors without being damaged
• situational awareness: perception of elements in the environment, and a comprehension of their meaning, and
could include a projection of the future status of perceived elements and the risk associated with that status
• survivability: ability to avoid or withstand a man-made hostile environment

• susceptibility reduction: reduce the inability to avoid the hostile environment
• tolerance:
• (damage tolerance): the ability of a material/structure to resist failure due to the presence of flaws for a
specified period of unrepaired usage
• (fault tolerance): the attribute of an item that makes it able to perform a required function in the presence of
certain sub-item faults
• transform: change aspects of system behavior
• understand: develop and maintain useful representations of required system capabilities, how those capabilities
are generated, the system environment, and the potential for degradation due to adversity
• vulnerability reduction: reduce the harm caused by a hostile environment
Taxonomy Layer 3: Architecture, Design, and Operational Techniques to Achieve

Resilience Objectives
Architecture, design, and operational techniques that may achieve resilience objectives include the following. Again,
the definition shown for each objective is specific to how it is used for resilience and are primarily drawn from
references cited elsewhere in this article and from the IRSWG:
• absorb: withstand stress without unacceptable degradation of the system’s capability
• adaptive response: reacting appropriately and dynamically to the specific situation, to limit consequences and
avoid degradation of system capability
• adversity management: acting to reduce the number and effectiveness of adversities
• analytic monitoring and modeling: gathering, fusing, and analyzing data based on an understanding of the
system, to identify vulnerabilities, find indications of potential or actual adverse conditions, identify potential or
actual system degradation and evaluate the efficacy of system countermeasures
• anomaly detection: discovering salient irregularities or abnormalities in the system or in its environment in a
timely manner that enables effective response action
• boundary enforcement: implementing the process, temporal, and spatial limits intended to protect the system
• buffering: reducing degradation due to stress through the use of excess capacity
• coordinated defense: having multiple, synergistic mechanisms to protect critical functional capability
• deception: confusing and thus impeding an adversary
• defense in depth: preventing or minimizing loss by employing multiple coordinated mechanisms
• detection avoidance: reducing an adversary's awareness of the system
• distributed privilege: requiring multiple authorized entities to act in a coordinated manner before a system
function is allowed to proceed
• distribution: spreading the system’s ability to perform physically or virtually
• diversification: use of a heterogeneous set of technologies, data sources, processing locations, equipment
locations, supply chains, communications paths, etc., to minimize common vulnerabilities and common mode
failures
• domain separation: physically or logically isolating items with distinctly different protection needs
• drift correction: monitoring the system’s movement toward the boundaries of proper operation and taking
corrective action
• dynamic positioning: relocation of system functionality or components
• dynamic representation: behavior modeling of the system
• effect tolerance: the ability to provide capability in spite of the strain on the system
• error recovery: automatic detection, control, and correction of an internal erroneous state
• fail soft: capable of prioritized, gradual termination of affected functions in the case of a fault or when failure is
imminent
• fault tolerance: ability to continue functioning with certain faults present

• forward recovery: error recovery in which a system, program, database, or other system resource is restored to a
new, not previously occupied state in which it can perform required functions
• human participation: including people as part of the system
• least functionality: when each element of the system has the ability to accomplish its required functions, but not
more
• least persistence: when system elements are available, accessible, and able to fulfill their design intent only for
the time they are needed
• least privilege: when system elements are allocated authorizations that are necessary to accomplish their
specified functions, but not more
• least sharing: when system resources are accessible by multiple system elements only when necessary, and
among as few system elements as possible
• loose coupling: minimize the interdependency of elements and thus reduce the potential for propagation of
damage
• loss margins: designing in excess capability so a partial degradation of capability is acceptable
• maintainability: ability to be retained in or restored to a state to perform as required, under given conditions of
use and maintenance
• mediated access: controlling the ability to access and use system elements
• modularity: degree to which a system or computer program is composed of discrete components such that a
change to one component has minimal impact on other components
• neutral state: the condition in which the system and stakeholders can safely take no action while awaiting
evaluation of the most appropriate action
• non-persistence: retaining information, services, and connectivity or functions for a limited time, thereby
reducing an adversary’s opportunity to exploit vulnerabilities and establish a persistent foothold
• privilege restriction: restricting authorization assigned to entities by an authority
• protection: mitigation of harm to the value of interest
• protective defaults: providing default configurations of the system that provide protection effectiveness
• protective failure: ensuring that failure of a system element neither results in an unacceptable loss, nor initiates
another loss scenario
• protective recovery: ensuring that recovery of a system element does not result in, nor lead to, unacceptable loss
• realignment: architectural reconfiguration to improve the system’s resilience
• redundancy, physical & functional: the existence of more than one means at a given instant of time for
performing a required function
• repairability: ability to be restored to a specified condition (partial or full functionality)
• replacement: change parts of an existing item to regain its functionality
• restructuring: dynamically changing the architecture to address the adversity
• safe state: providing the ability to transition to a state that does not lead to critical or catastrophic consequences
• segmentation: separation (logically or physically) of components to limit the spread of damage
• shielding: interposition of material (physical or virtual) that inhibits the adversity’s ability to stress the system
• substantiated integrity: providing the ability to ensure that system components have not been corrupted
• substitution: using new system elements not previously used to provide or restore capability
• unpredictability: ability to make changes randomly that confound an opponent’s understanding of the system
• virtualization: creating a virtual rather than actual version of something, including virtual computer hardware
platforms, storage devices, and computer network resources
The means objectives and architectural and design techniques will evolve as the resilience engineering discipline
matures.
The Resilience Process

Implementation of resilience in a system requires the execution of both analytic and holistic processes. In particular,
the use of architecting with the associated heuristics is required, as shown in Table 1 below. Inputs are the desired
level of resilience and the characteristics of a threat or disruption. Outputs are the characteristics of the system,
particularly the architectural characteristics and the nature of the elements (e.g., hardware, software, or humans).
Artifacts depend on the domain of the system. For technological systems, specification and architectural descriptions
will result. For enterprise systems, enterprise plans will result.
Both analytic and holistic methods are required, including the techniques of architecting. Analytic methods
determine required robustness. Holistic methods determine required adaptability, tolerance, and integrity.
One pitfall to be avoided is to depend on just a single technique to achieve resilience. Resilience benefits from
multiple techniques, thus achieving defense in depth.
Resilience should be considered throughout the systems engineering life cycle, but most especially in early life cycle
activities that produce resilience requirements. Once resilience requirements are established, they can and should be
managed throughout the system life cycle along with all the other requirements in the trade space. Brtis and
McEvilley (2019) recommend specific considerations, listed below, to be included in early life cycle activities.
• Business or Mission Analysis Process
• Defining the problem space should include identification of adversities and expectations for performance under
those adversities.
• ConOps, OpsCon, and solution classes should consider the ability to avoid, withstand, and recover from the
adversities.
• Evaluation of alternative solution classes must consider ability to deliver required capabilities under adversity.
• Stakeholder Needs and Requirements Definition Process
• The stakeholder set should include persons who understand potential adversities and stakeholder resilience
needs.
• When identifying stakeholder needs, identify expectations for capability under adverse conditions and
degraded/alternate, but useful, modes of operation.
• Operational concept scenarios should include resilience scenarios.
• Transforming stakeholder needs into stakeholder requirements includes stakeholder resilience requirements.
• Analysis of stakeholder requirements includes resilience scenarios in the adverse operational environment.
• System Requirements Definition Process
• Resilience should be considered in the identification of requirements.
• Achieving resilience and other adversity-driven considerations should be addressed holistically.
• Architecture Definition Process
• Selected viewpoints should support the representation of resilience.
• Resilience requirements can significantly limit and guide the range of acceptable architectures. It is critical that
resilience requirements are mature when used for architecture selection.
• Individuals developing candidate architectures should be familiar with architectural techniques for achieving
resilience.
• Achieving resilience and other adversity-driven considerations should be addressed holistically.
• Design Definition Process
• Individuals developing candidate designs should be familiar with design techniques for achieving resilience.
• Achieving resilience and the other adversity-driven considerations should be addressed holistically.
• Risk Management Process
• Risk management should be planned to handle risks, issues, and opportunities identified by resilience
activities.
Table 1. Resilience Heuristics Based on Means for Achieving Level 2 Objectives

# Heuristic
1 The system should react appropriately and dynamically to the specific situation to limit consequences, avoid degradation of system capability.
2 System should have the ability to adapt to deliver required capability in unpredictably evolving conditions.
3 System should establish awareness of the nature of potential adversities their likely consequences and appropriate responses prior to the
adversity stressing the system.
4 System should limit the propagation of damage within the system.
5 System will maintain the delivery of required capability while and after being stressed.
6 System will disperse missions, functions, subsystems, or components across multiple systems or subsystems.
7 System will restructure itself to address changes to the adversity or needs over time
8 System will have the ability to transition to desirable states after damage
9 System will maintain the quality of being complete and unaltered
10 System will leverage value-added characteristics of complexity and will suppress detracting characteristics following an encounter with an
adversity
Resilience Requirements
Brtis and McEvilley (2019) investigated the content and structure needed to specify resilience requirements.
Resilience requirements often take the form of a resilience scenario. There can be many such scenario threads in the
Conops or OpsCon.
The following information is often part of a resilience requirement:
• operational concept name
• system or system portion of interest
• capability(s) of interest their metric(s) and units
• target value(s); i.e., the required amount of the capability(s)
• system modes of operation during the scenario, e.g., operational, training, exercise, maintenance, and update
• system states expected during the scenario
• adversity(s) being considered, their source, and type
• potential stresses on the system, their metrics, units, and values (Adversities may affect the system either directly
or indirectly. Stresses are adversities that directly affect the system.)
• resilience related scenario constraints, e.g., cost, schedule, policies, and regulations
• timeframe and sub-timeframes of interest
• resilience metric, units, determination methods, and resilience metric target; example metrics: expected
availability of required capability, maximum allowed degradation, maximum length of degradation, and total
delivered capability. There may be multiple resilience targets, e.g., threshold, objective, and "as resilient as
practicable." (Resilience metrics are often strains on the system; i.e., the effects of stress on the system.)
Importantly, many of these parameters may vary over the timeframe of the scenario (see Figure 2). Also, a single
resilience scenario may involve multiple adversities, which may be involved at multiple times throughout the
scenario.
Figure 2. Time-Wise Values of Notional Resilience Scenarios Parameters. (Brtis et al. 2021, Used with Permission)
Representing the complexity of resilience requirements is not straightforward. Brtis, et al. (2021) studied this
challenge and recommended three forms for resilience requirements: (1) natural language, (2) entity-relationship
diagram (data structure), and (3) an extension to SysML. All contain the same information, but are in forms that
meet the needs of different audiences. An example of a natural language pattern for representing a resilience
requirement is:
The <system, mode(t), state(t)> encountering <adversity(t), source, type>, which imposes <stress(t),
metric, units, value(t)> thus affecting delivery of <capability(t), metric, units> during <scenario
timeframe, start time, end time, units> and under <scenario constraints>, shall achieve <resilience
target(t) (include excluded effects)> for <resilience metric, units, determination method>
Affordable Resilience
"Affordable Resilience" means to achieve an effective balance across life cycle cost and technical attributes of
Resilience Engineering. This implies providing required capability when facing adversity in current and changing
conditions to satisfy the needs of multiple stakeholders throughout a system's life cycle. Life cycle considerations for
affordable resilience should address not only risks and issues associated with known and unknown adversities over
time, but also opportunities for gain in known and unknown future environments.
Technical attributes for affordable resilience include potential treatment of technical risks, reliability, robustness,
flexibility, adaptability, tolerance, and integrity, as well as the ability to prepare for and avoid, withstand, and
recover from adversity. This may require balancing the time value of funding vs. the time value of resilience in order
to achieve affordable resilience as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Resilience versus Cost. (Wheaton 2015, Used with Permission)
Once the affordable levels of resilience are determined for each key technical attribute, the affordable levels across
those attributes can be prioritized via standard techniques, such as Multi-attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) (Keeney
and Raiffa 1993) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). (Saaty 2009)
The priority of affordable resilience attributes for systems is typically domain-dependent; for example:
• Public transportation systems may emphasize safety as well as meeting regulatory requirements and mitigating
liability risks, with spending spread out in time to match current and future budgets
• Electronic funds transfer systems may emphasize cyber security, with whatever funding is required to meet
regulatory requirements and liability risks
• Unmanned space exploration systems may emphasize survivability to withstand previously-unknown
environments, usually with specified (and often limited) near-term funding constraints
• Electrical power grids may emphasize safety, reliability, and meeting regulatory requirements together with
adaptability to change in the balance of power generation and storage technologies with shifts in power
distribution and usage
• Medical capacity for disasters may emphasize rapid adaptability to major incidents, with affordable levels of
planning, preparation, response, and recovery to meet public health demands. This emphasis must balance
potential liability and concurrent accomplishment of key emergency medical practices, such as triage and “first do
no harm”.
Resilience has commonality and synergy with a number of other quality areas. Examples include availability,
environmental impact, survivability, maintainability, reliability, operational risk management, safety, security and,
quality. This group of quality areas is referred to as loss-driven systems engineering (LDSE) because they all focus
on potential losses involved in the development and use of systems. These areas frequently share the assets
considered, losses considered, adversities considered, requirements, and architectural, design and process techniques.
It is imperative that these areas work closely with one another and share information and decision-making in order to
achieve a holistic approach. The concept of pursuing loss-driven systems engineering, its expected benefits, and the
means by which it can be pursued are addressed extensively in an edition of INCOSE Insight (2020).
Two standards stand out for insight on resilience:
• ASISI (2009) is a standard pertaining to the resilience of organizational systems.
• NIST 800-160 (Ross, R. et al. 2018) considers the resilience of physical systems.
People are important components of systems for which resilience is desired. This aspect is reflected in the human in
the loop technique identified by Jackson and Ferris (2013). Decisions made by people are at the discretion of the
people in real time. Apollo 11 described by Eyles (2009) is a good example.
Organizational Resilience
Because organizational systems and cyber-physical systems differ significantly, it is not surprising that resilience is
addressed differently in each. It is important that those pursuing organizational resilience and cyber-physical
resilience learn and benefit by understanding the alternate perspective. Organizations as systems and systems of
systems typically view resilience in terms of managing continuity of its operations, including through emergencies,
incidents, and other adverse events, with a host of processes whose required capability is focused on ensuring the
organization’s core functions can withstand disruptions, interruptions, and adversities. ISO 22301 addresses
requirements for security and resilience in business continuity management systems. It is an international standard
that provides requirements appropriate to the amount and type of impact that the organization may or may not accept
following a disruption.
Resilient organizations require resilient employees. Coutu (2002) explores three characteristics of resilient
organizations and resilient people: (1) they accept the harsh realities facing them, (2) they find meaning in terrible
times, and (3) they are creative under pressure, making do with whatever’s at hand.
Hamel & Valikangas (2003) explore means of achieving strategic resilience, i.e., "the ability to dynamically reinvent
business models and strategies as circumstances change…and to change before the need becomes desperately
obvious". An organization with this capability constantly remakes its future rather than defending its past.
Lee, Vargo, and Seville (2013) developed metrics and tools for measuring organizational resilience based on three
dimensions: (1) the level of organizational situational awareness, (2) management of organizational vulnerabilities,
and (3) organizational adaptive capacity. These three items seem to be well accepted and appear in some form in
many papers.
Preparing for the unknown is a recurring challenge of resilience. Organizations must frequently deal with adversities
that were previously unknown or unknowable. Scoblic, et. al. (2020) describes techniques for developing strategic
foresight. He recommends adopting the practice of scenario planning, where multiple adverse futures are
envisioned, countermeasures are developed, and coping strategies that appear most frequently are deemed “robust”
and candidates for action. This process also trains personnel to better deal with emerging adversity.
Metrics
Uday and Marais (2015) performed a survey of resilience metrics. Those identified include:
• Time duration of failure
• Time duration of recovery
• Ratio of performance recovery to performance loss
• A function of speed of recovery
• Performance before and after the disruption and recovery actions
• System importance measures
Jackson (2016) developed a metric to evaluate various systems in four domains: aviation, fire protection, rail, and
power distribution, for the principles that were lacking in ten different case studies. The principles are from the set
identified by Jackson and Ferris (2013) and are represented in the form of a histogram plotting principles against
frequency of omission. The data in these gaps were taken from case studies in which the lack of principles was
inferred from recommendations by domain experts in the various cases cited.
Brtis (2016) surveyed and evaluated a number of potential resilience metrics and identified the following:
• Maximum outage period
• Maximum brownout period
• Maximum outage depth
• Expected value of capability: the probability-weighted average of capability delivered
• Threat resiliency; i.e. the time integrated ratio of the capability provided divided by the minimum needed
capability
• Expected availability of required capability; i.e. the likelihood that for a given adverse environment the required
capability level will be available
• Resilience levels; i.e. the ability to provide required capability in a hierarchy of increasingly difficult adversity
• Cost to the opponent
• Cost-benefit to the opponent
• Resource resiliency; i.e. the degradation of capability that occurs as successive contributing assets are lost
Brtis found that multiple metrics may be required, depending on the situation. However, if one had to select a single
most effective metric for reflecting the meaning of resilience, Brtis proposed that it would be "the expected
availability of the required capability." Expected availability of the required capability is the probability-weighted
sum of the availability summed across the scenarios under consideration. In its most basic form, this metric can be
represented mathematically as:
where,
R = Resilience of the required capability (Cr);
n = the number of exhaustive and mutually exclusive adversity scenarios within a context (n can equal 1);
Pi = the probability of adversity scenario i;
Cr(t)i = time wise availability of the required capability during scenario i: 0 if below the required level, 1 if at or
above the required value. Where circumstances dictate this may take on a more complex, non-binary function of
time;
T = length of the time of interest.
References
Works Cited
Adams, K. M., P.T. Hester, J.M. Bradley, T.J. Meyers, and C.B. Keating. 2014. "Systems Theory as the Foundation
for Understanding Systems." Systems Engineering, 17(1):112-123.
ASISl. 2009. Organizational Resilience: Security, Preparedness, and Continuity Management
Systems--Requirements With Guidance for Use. Alexandria, VA, USA: ASIS International.
Billings, C. 1997. Aviation Automation: The Search for Human-Centered Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Boehm, B. 2013. Tradespace and Affordability – Phase 2 Final Technical Report. December 31 2013, Stevens
Institute of Technology Systems Engineering Research Center, SERC-2013-TR-039-2. Accessed April 2, 2021.
Available at https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608178.pdf.
Browning, T.R. 2014. "A Quantitative Framework for Managing Project Value, Risk, and Opportunity." IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management. 61(4): 583-598, Nov. 2014. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2014.2326986.
Brtis, J.S. 2016. How to Think About Resilience in a DoD Context: A MITRE Recommendation. MITRE Corporation,
Colorado Springs, CO. MTR 160138, PR 16-20151,
Brtis, J.S. and M.A. McEvilley. 2019. Systems Engineering for Resilience. The MITRE Corporation. MP 190495.
Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https:/ / www. researchgate. net/ publication/
334549424_Systems_Engineering_for_Resilience.
Brtis, J.S., M.A. McEvilley, and M.J. Pennock. 2021. “Resilience Requirements Patterns.” Proceedings of the
INCOSE International Symposium, July 17-21, 2021.
Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Clemen, Robert T. and T. Reilly. 2001. Making Hard Decisions, with DecisionTools. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove,
CA.
Coutu, Diane L., “How Resilience Works”. Harvard Business Review 80(5):46-50, 2002.
Cureton, Ken. 2023. About Resilience Engineering in (and of) Digital Engineering. Presented to the Defense
Acquisition University, February 23, 2023. Accessed October 2, 2023. Available at https:/ / media. dau. edu/ media/
t/1_xfmk3vyh.
DHS. 2017. Instruction Manual 262-12-001-01 DHS Lexicon Terms and Definitions 2017 Edition – Revision 2. US
Department of Homeland Security. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https:/ / www. dhs. gov/ sites/ default/ files/
publications/18_0116_MGMT_DHS-Lexicon.pdf.
Eyles, D. 2009. "1202 Computer Error Almost Aborted Lunar Landing." Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
MIT News. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available http:/ / njnnetwork. com/ 2009/ 07/
1202-computer-error-almost-aborted-lunar-landing/.
Hamel, G. and L. Valikangas. 2003. “The Quest for Resilience,” Harvard Business Review, 81(9):52-63.
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the General Principles Applicable to Systems?" INCOSE Insight. 12(4):59-6359-63.
Accessed April 2, 2021. Available athttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/inst.200912459.
Hollnagel, E., D. Woods, and N. Leveson (eds). 2006. Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook, a Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. New York,
INCOSE. 2020. "Special Feature: Loss-Driven Systems Engineering," INCOSE Insight. 23(4): 7-33. Accessed May
7, 2021. Available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/21564868/2020/23/4.
Jackson, S. and T. Ferris. 2013. "Resilience Principles for Engineered Systems." Systems Engineering.
16(2):152-164. doi:10.1002/sys.21228.
Jackson, S. and T. Ferris. 2016. Proactive and Reactive Resilience: A Comparison of Perspectives. Accessed April 2,
2021. Available at https:/ / www. academia. edu/ 34079700/
Proactive_and_Reactive_Resilience_A_Comparison_of_Perspectives.
Jackson, W.S. 2016. Evaluation of Resilience Principles for Engineered Systems. Unpublished PhD, University of
South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Keeney, R.L. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking, a Path to Creative Decision-making, Harvard University Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa. 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, A.V., J. Vargo, and E. Seville. 2013. "Developing a tool to measure and compare organizations’ resilience".
Natural Hazards Review, 14(1):29-41.
Madni, A. and S. Jackson. 2009. "Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering." IEEE Systems
Journal. 3(2):181-191.
Neches, R. and A.M. Madni. 2013. "Towards affordably adaptable and effective systems". Systems Engineering, 16:
224-234. doi:10.1002/sys.21234.
OED. 1973. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles. edited by C. T. Onions. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Original edition, 1933.
Ross, R., M. McEvilley, J. Oren 2018. "Systems Security Engineering: Considerations for a Multidisciplinary
Approach in the Engineering of Trustworthy Secure Systems." National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST). SP 800-160 Vol. 1. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https:/ / csrc. nist. gov/ publications/ detail/ sp/
800-160/vol-1/final.
Saaty, T.L. 2009. Mathematical Principles of Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: RWS Publications.
Scoblic, J.P., A. Ignatius, D. Kessler, “Emerging from the Crisis,” Harvard Business Review, July, 2020.
Sillitto, H.G. and D. Dori. 2017. "Defining 'System': A Comprehensive Approach." Proceedings of the INCOSE
International Symposium 2017, Adelaide, Australia.
Uday, P. and K. Morais. 2015. Designing Resilient Systems-of-Systems: A Survey of Metrics, Methods, and
Challenges. Systems Engineering. 18(5):491-510.
Warfield, J.N. 2008. "A Challenge for Systems Engineers: To Evolve Toward Systems Science." INCOSE Insight.
11(1).
Wheaton, M.J. and A.M. Madni. 2015. "Resiliency and Affordability Attributes in a System Integration Tradespace",
Proceedings of AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition, 31 Aug-2 Sep 2015, Pasadena California. Accessed
April 30, 2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-4434.
Winstead, M. 2020. “An Early Attempt at a Core, Common Set of Loss-Driven Systems Engineering Principles.”
INCOSE INSIGHT, December 22-26.
Winstead, M., D. Hild, and M. McEvilley. 2021. “Principles of Trustworthy Design of Cyber-Physical Systems.”
MITRE Technical Report #210263, The MITRE Corporation, June 2021. Available: https:/ / www. mitre. org/
publications/technical-papers.
Primary References
Hollnagel, E., D.D. Woods, and N. Leveson (Eds.). 2006. Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Jackson, S. and T. Ferris. 2013. "Resilience Principles for Engineered Systems." Systems Engineering,
16(2):152-164.
Jackson, S., S.C. Cook, and T. Ferris. 2015. "Towards a Method to Describe Resilience to Assist in System
Specification." Proceedings of the INCOSE International Symposium. Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at https:/ /
www. researchgate. net/ publication/
277718256_Towards_a_Method_to_Describe_Resilience_to_Assist_System_Specification.
Jackson, S. 2016. Principles for Resilient Design - A Guide for Understanding and Implementation. Accessed April
30, 2021. Available at https://www.irgc.org/irgc-resource-guide-on-resilience.
Madni, A. and S. Jackson. 2009. "Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering." IEEE Systems
Journal. 3(2):181-191.
9/11 Commission. 2004. 9/11 Commission Report. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States.
Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https://9-11commission.gov/report/.
Ball, R. E. (2003). The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design. 2nd edition. AIAA
(American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics) Education series. (August 1, 2003)
Billings, C. 1997. Aviation Automation: The Search for Human-Centered Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bodeau, D. K and R. Graubart. 2011. Cyber Resiliency Engineering Framework. The MITRE Corporation. MITRE
Technical Report #110237.
Bodeu, D. K. and R. Graubart. 2012. Cyber Resiliency Engineering Framework. The MITRE Corporation. Accessed
April 2, 2021. Available at https:/ / www. mitre. org/ publications/ technical-papers/
cyber-resiliency-engineering-framework.
DoD. 1985. MIL-HDBK-268(AS) Survivability Enhancement, Aircraft Conventional Weapon Threats, Design and
Evaluation Guidelines. US Navy, Naval Air Systems Command.
Henry, D. and E. Ramirez-Marquez. 2016. "On the Impacts of Power Outages during Hurricane Sandy – A
Resilience Based Analysis." Systems Engineering.19(1): 59-75. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https:/ /
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sys.21338.
Jackson, S., S.C. Cook, and T. Ferris. 2015. A Generic State-Machine Model of System Resilience. INCOSE Insight.
18(1):1 4-18. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https:/ / onlinelibrary. wiley. com/ doi/ 10. 1002/ inst. 12003.
Accessed on April 2, 2021.
Leveson, N. 1995. Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
Pariès, J. 2011. "Lessons from the Hudson." in Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook, edited by E.
Hollnagel, J. Pariès, D.D. Woods and J. Wreathhall, 9-27. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Perrow, C. 1999. Normal Accidents: Living With High Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Reason, J. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Rechtin, E. 1991. Systems Architecting: Creating and Building Complex Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: CRC Press.
Schwarz, C.R. and H. Drake. 2001. Aerospace Systems Survivability Handbook Series. Volume 4: Survivability
Engineering. Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Aircraft Survivability, Arlington, VA.
US-Canada Power System Outage Task Force. 2004. Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United
States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. Washington-Ottawa.

System Resistance to Electromagnetic

Interference
Lead Author: Paul Phister, Contributing Authors: Scott Jackson, Richard Turner, John Snoderly, Alice Squires
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) is the disruption of operation of an electronic device when it is in the vicinity
of an electromagnetic field in the radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Many electronic devices fail to work properly in
the presence of strong RF fields. The disturbance may interrupt, obstruct, or otherwise degrade or limit the effective
performance of the circuit. The source may be any object, artificial or natural, that carries rapidly changing electrical
currents.
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) is the ability of systems, equipment, and devices that utilize the
electromagnetic spectrum to operate in their intended operational environments without suffering unacceptable
degradation or causing unintentional degradation because of electromagnetic radiation or response. It involves the
application of sound electromagnetic spectrum management; system, equipment, and device design configuration
that ensures interference-free operation; and clear concepts and doctrines that maximize operational effectiveness
(DAU 2010, Chapter 7).
Overview
Spectrum
Each nation has the right of sovereignty over the use of its spectrum and must recognize that other nations reserve
the same right. It is essential that regional and global forums exist for the discussion and resolution of spectrum
development and infringement issues between bordering and proximal countries that might otherwise be difficult to
resolve.
The oldest, largest, and unquestionably the most important such forum, with 193 member countries, is the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) agency of the United Nations, which manages spectrum at a global
level. As stated in Chapter 3 of the NTIA Manual, “The International Telecommunication Union (ITU)...is
responsible for international frequency allocations, worldwide telecommunications standards and telecommunication
development activities” (NTIA 2011, 3-2). The broad functions of the ITU are the regulation, coordination and
development of international telecommunications.
The spectrum allocation process is conducted by many different international telecommunication geographical
committees. Figure 1 shows the various international forums represented worldwide.
Figure 1. International & Regional Spectrum Management Forums. (SEBoK Original)
Assigning frequencies is very complicated, as shown in the radio spectrum allocation chart in Figure 2. Sometimes,
commercial entities try to use frequencies that are actually assigned to US government agencies, such as the
Department of Defense (DoD). One such incident occurred when an automatic garage door vendor installed doors on
homes situated near a government installation. Random opening and closing of the doors created a problem for the
vendor that could have been avoided.
Four ITU organizations affect spectrum management (Stine and Portigal 2004):
1. World Radio-communication Conference (WRC)
2. Radio Regulations Board (RRB)
3. Radio-communications Bureau (RB)
4. Radio-communication Study Groups (RSG)
The WRC meets every four years to review and modify current frequency allocations. The RB registers frequency
assignments and maintains the master international register. The RRB approves the Rules of Procedures used by the
BR to register frequency assignments and adjudicates interference conflicts among member nations. The SG
analyzes spectrum usage in terrestrial and space applications and makes allocation recommendations to the WRC.
Most member nations generally develop national frequency allocation polices that are consistent with the Radio
Regulations (RR). These regulations have treaty status.
Dual Management of Spectrum in the US

Whereas most countries have a single government agency to perform the spectrum management function, the US has
a dual management scheme intended to insure that
• decisions concerning commercial interests are made only after considering their impact on government systems;
and
• government usage supports commercial interests.
The details of this scheme, established by the Communications Act of 1934, are as follows:
• the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for all non-government usage
• the FCC is directly responsible to Congress;
• the president is responsible for federal government usage, and by executive order, delegates the federal
government spectrum management to the National *Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA); and
• the NTIA is under the authority of the Secretary of Commerce.
The FCC regulates all non-federal government telecommunications under Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. For example, see FCC (2009, 11299-11318). The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by
the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. The Commission staff is organized by function. The
responsibilities of the six operating Bureaus include processing applications for licenses, analyzing complaints,
conducting investigations, implementing regulatory programs, and conducting hearings (http://www.fcc.gov).
The NTIA performs spectrum management function through the Office of Spectrum Management (OSM), governed
by the Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management. The IRAC develops and
executes policies, procedures, and technical criteria pertinent to the allocation, management, and usage of spectrum.
The Spectrum Planning and Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC) reviews the reviews IRAC plans, balancing
considerations of manufacturing, commerce, research, and academic interests.
Within the DoD, spectrum planning and routine operation activities are cooperatively managed. Spectrum
certification is a mandated process designed to ensure that
1. frequency band usage and type of service in a given band are in conformance with the appropriate national and
international tables of frequency allocations;
2. equipment conforms to all applicable standards, specifications, and regulations; and
3. approval is provided for expenditures to develop equipment dependent upon wireless communications.
Host Nation Coordination and Host Nation Approval

In peacetime, international spectrum governance requires military forces to obtain host nation permission — Host
Nation Coordination (HNC)/Host Nation Approval (HNA) — to operate spectrum-dependent systems and equipment
within a sovereign nation. For example, international governance is honored and enforced within the United States
by the US departments of State, Defense, and the user service.
In wartime, international spectrum governance is not honored between warring countries; however, the sovereign
spectrum rights of bordering countries must be respected by military forces executing their assigned missions. For
example, HNA is solicited by US naval forces to use spectrum-dependent systems and equipment in bordering
countries’ airspace and/or on bordering countries’ soil. HNA must be obtained before the operation of
spectrum-dependent systems and equipment within a sovereign nation. The combatant commander is responsible for
coordinating requests with sovereign nations within his or her area of responsibility. Because the combatant
commander has no authority over a sovereign nation, the HNC/HNA process can be lengthy and needs to be started
early in the development of a system. Figure 2 illustrates a spectrum example.
Figure 2. The Radio Spectrum (Department of Commerce 2003). Released by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Source is available at http:/ /
www. ntia. doc. gov/ files/ ntia/ publications/ 2003-allochrt. pdf (Retrieved September 15, 2011)
EMI/EMC is difficult to achieve for systems that operate world-wide because of the different frequencies in which
products are designed to operate in each of the telecommunication areas. Billions of US dollars have been spent in
retrofitting US DoD equipment to operate successfully in other countries.
It is important to note that the nuclear radiation environment is drastically more stressing than, and very different
from, the space radiation environment.
System Description
Narrowband and Broadband Emissions

To help in analyzing conducted and radiated interference effects, EMI is categorized into two types—narrowband
and broadband—which are defined as follows:
• Narrowband Emissions
A narrowband signal occupies a very small portion of the radio spectrum… Such signals are usually
continuous sine waves (CW) and may be continuous or intermittent in occurrence… Spurious emissions,
such as harmonic outputs of narrowband communication transmitters, power-line hum, local
oscillators, signal generators, test equipment, and many other man made sources are narrowband
emitters. (Bagad 2009, G-1)
• Broadband Emissions
A broadband signal may spread its energy across hundreds of megahertz or more… This type of signal
is composed of narrow pulses having relatively short rise and fall times. Broadband signals are further
divided into random and impulse sources. These may be transient, continuous or intermittent in
occurrence. Examples include unintentional emissions from communication and radar transmitters,
electric switch contacts, computers, thermostats, ignition systems, voltage regulators, pulse generators,
and intermittent ground connections. (Bagad 2009, G-1)
TEMPEST
TEMPEST is a codename used to refer to the field of emission security. The National Security Agency (NSA)
investigations conducted to study compromising emission (CE) were codenamed TEMPEST. National Security
Telecommunications Information Systems Security Issuance (NSTISSI)-7000 states:
Electronic and electromechanical information-processing equipment can produce unintentional
intelligence-bearing emanations, commonly known as TEMPEST. If intercepted and analyzed, these
emanations may disclose information transmitted, received, handled, or otherwise processed by the
equipment. (NSTISS 1993, 3)
These compromising emanations consist of electrical, mechanical, or acoustical energy intentionally or
unintentionally emitted by sources within equipment or systems which process national security information.
Electronic communications equipment needs to be secured from potential eavesdroppers while allowing security
agencies to intercept and interpret similar signals from other sources. The ranges at which these signals can be
intercepted depends upon the functional design of the information processing equipment, its installation, and
prevailing environmental conditions.
Electronic devices and systems can be designed, by means of Radiation Hardening techniques, to resist damage or
malfunction caused by ionizing and other forms of radiation (Van Lint and Holmes Siedle 2000). Electronics in
systems can be exposed to ionizing radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts around the Earth’s atmosphere, cosmic
radiation in outer space, gamma or neutron radiation near nuclear reactors, and electromagnetic pulses (EMP) during
nuclear events.
A single charged particle can affect thousands of electrons, causing electronic noise that subsequently produces
inaccurate signals. These errors could affect safe and effective operation of satellites, spacecraft, and nuclear devices.
Lattice displacement is permanent damage to the arrangement of atoms in element crystals within electronic devices.
Lattice displacement is caused by neutrons, protons, alpha particles, and heavy ions. Ionization effects are temporary
damages that create latch-up glitches in high power transistors and soft errors like bit flips in digital devices.
Ionization effects are caused by charged particles.
Most radiation-hardened components are based on the functionality of their commercial equivalents. Design features
and manufacturing variations are incorporated to reduce the components’ susceptibility to interference from
radiation. Physical design techniques include insulating substrates, package shielding, chip shielding with depleted
boron, and magneto-resistive RAM. Logical design techniques include error-correcting memory, error detection in
processing paths, and redundant elements at both circuit and subsystem levels (Dawes 1991). Nuclear hardness is
expressed as susceptibility or vulnerability for given environmental conditions. These environmental conditions
include peak radiation levels, overpressure, dose rates, and total dosage.
References
Works Cited
Bagad, V.S. 2009. Electronic Product Design, 4th ed. Pune, India: Technical Publications Pune.
NSTISS. 1993. Tempest Countermeasures for Facilities. Ft. Meade, MD, USA: National Security
Telecommunications and Information Systems Security (NSTISSI). 29 November, 1993. NSTISSI No. 7000.
NTIA. 2011. Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management, May 2011
Revision of the 2008 Edition. Washington, DC, USA: National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Stine, J. and D. Portigal. 2004. An Introduction to Spectrum Management. Bedford, MA, USA: MITRE Technical
Report Spectrum. March 2004.
Van Lint, V.A.J. and A.G. Holmes Siedle. 2000. Radiation Effects in Electronics: Encyclopedia of Physical Science
and Technology. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press.
Primary References
None.

System Safety 1047
System Safety
Lead Author: Dick Fairley, Contributing Authors: Art Pyster, Alice Squires
In the most general sense, safety is freedom from harm. As an engineering discipline, system safety is concerned
with minimizing hazards that can result in a mishap with an expected severity and with a predicted probability.
These events can occur in elements of life-critical systems as well as other system elements. MIL-STD-882E defines
system safety as “the application of engineering and management principles, criteria, and techniques to achieve
acceptable risk, within the constraints of operational effectiveness and suitability, time, and cost, throughout all
phases of the system life cycle" (DoD 2012). MIL-STD-882E defines standard practices and methods to apply as
engineering tools in the practice of system safety. These tools are applied to both hardware and software elements of
the system in question.
Overview
System safety engineering focuses on identifying hazards, their causal factors, and predicting the resultant severity
and probability. The ultimate goal of the process is to reduce or eliminate the severity and probability of the
identified hazards, and to minimize risk and severity where the hazards cannot be eliminated. MIL STD 882E
defines a hazard as "a real or potential condition that could lead to an unplanned event or series of events (i.e.,
mishap) resulting in death, injury, occupational illness, damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the
environment." (DoD 2012).
While systems safety engineering attempts to minimize safety issues throughout the planning and design of systems,
mishaps do occur from combinations of unlikely hazards with minimal probabilities. As a result, safety engineering
is often performed in reaction to adverse events after deployment. For example, many improvements in aircraft
safety come about as a result of recommendations by the U.S. National Air Traffic Safety Board based on accident
investigations. Risk is defined as “a combination of the severity of the mishap and the probability that the mishap
will occur" (DoD 2012). Failure to identify risks to safety and the according inability to address or "control" these
risks can result in massive costs, both human and economic (Roland and Moriarty 1990)."
System Safety Specialists are typically responsible for ensuring system safety. Chapter 11 of Air Force Instruction
(AFI) 191-202 (USAF 2020) is a lengthy exposition of the responsibilities of system safety specialists. AFI 191-202
defines system safety as "the application of engineering and management principles, criteria and techniques to
achieve acceptable risk within the constraints of operational effectiveness and suitability, time and cost throughout
all phases of the system life cycle." The AFI identifies eight activities to achieve systems safety:
1. Documenting the system safety approach
2. Hazard identification and analysis over the system life cycle
3. Assessment of risk, expressed as severity and probability of consequences
4. Identification and assessment of potential risk mitigation measures
5. Implementation of measures to reduce risks to acceptable levels
6. Verification of risk reduction
7. Acceptance of risks by appropriate authorities
8. Tracking of hazards and risks throughout the system life cycle
Although these activities are documented in an Air Force Instruction, they are actually quite generic and applicable
to almost any system safety process.
System Safety 1048
Safety personnel are responsible for the integration of system safety requirements, principles, procedures, and
processes into the program and into lower system design levels to ensure a safe and effective interface. Two common
mechanisms are the Safety Working Group (SWG) and the Management Safety Review Board (MSRB). The SWG
enables safety personnel from all integrated product teams (IPTs) to evaluate, coordinate, and implement a safety
approach that is integrated at the system level in accordance with MIL-STD-882E (DoD 2012). Increasingly, safety
reviews are being recognized as an important risk management tool. The MSRB provides program level oversight
and resolves safety related program issues across all IPTs.
Table 1 provides additional information on safety.
Table 1. Safety Ontology. (SEBoK Original)

Ontology Element Name Ontology Element Attributes Relationships to Safety
Failure modes Manner of failure Required attribute
Severity Consequences of failure Required attribute
Criticality Impact of failure Required attribute
Hazard Identification Identification of potential failure modes Required to determine failure modes
Risk Probability of a failure occurring Required attribute
Mitigation Measure to take corrective action Necessary to determine criticality and severity
Table 1 indicates that achieving system safety involves a close tie between Safety Engineering and other specialty
Systems Engineering disciplines such as System Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability.
References
Works Cited
DoD. 2012. Standard practice for System Safety. Arlington, VA, USA: Department of Defense (DoD). MIL-STD
882E. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at http:/ / everyspec. com/ MIL-STD/ MIL-STD-0800-0899/
MIL-STD-882E_41682/.
Roland, H.E. and B. Moriarty. 1990. System Safety Engineering and Management, 2nd Ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley.
USAF. 2020. The US Air Force Mishap Prevention Program. Air Force Instruction 91-202. Washington, DC, USA:
US Air Force. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available https:/ / static. e-publishing. af. mil/ production/ 1/ af_se/
publication/afi91-202/afi91-202.pdf.
Primary References
DoD. 2012. Standard practice for System Safety. Arlington, VA, USA: Department of Defense (DoD). MIL-STD
882E. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at http:/ / everyspec. com/ MIL-STD/ MIL-STD-0800-0899/
MIL-STD-882E_41682/.
Bahr, N.J. 2015. System Safety Engineering and Risk Assessment: A Practice Approach, 2nd Ed. Boca Raton, FL,
USA: CRC Press.
ISSS. 2015a. "System Safety Hazard Analysis Report." The International System Safety Society (ISSS).
DI-SAFT-80101C. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at http:/ / everyspec. com/ DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/
DI-SAFT/DI-SAFT-80101C_53803/.
System Safety 1049
ISSS. 2015b. "Safety Assessment Report." The International System Safety Society (ISSS). DI-SAFT-80102C.
Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at http:/ / everyspec. com/ DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/ DI-SAFT/
DI-SAFT-80102C_53802/.Accessed on April 2, 2021.
ISSS. 2015c. "Engineering Change Proposal System Safety Report." The International System Safety Society
(ISSS). DI-SAFT-80103C. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at http:/ / everyspec. com/ DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/
ISSS. 2015d. "Waiver or Deviation System Safety Report." The International System Safety Society (ISSS).
ISSS. 2015e. "System Safety Program Progress Report." The International System Safety Society (ISSS).
ISSS. 2015f. "Health Hazard Assessment Report." The International System Safety Society (ISSS).
ISSS. 2003. "Explosive Ordnance Disposal Data." The International System Safety Society (ISSS).
DI-SAFT-80931B. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available http:/ / everyspec. com/ DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/
DI-SAFT/DI-SAFT-80931B_15713/..
ISSS. 2015. "Explosive Hazard Classification Data." The International System Safety Society (ISSS).
ISSS. 2001. "System Safety Program Plan (SSPP)." The International System Safety Society (ISSS).
DI-SAFT-81626. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at http:/ / everyspec. com/ DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/
DI-SAFT/DI-SAFT-81626_11514/.
ISSS. 2015. "Mishap Risk Assessment Report." The International System Safety Society (ISSS). DI-SAFT-81300B.
Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at http:/ / everyspec. com/ DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/ DI-SAFT/
DI-SAFT-81300B_53813/.
Joint Software System Safety Committee. 1999. Software System Safety Handbook. Accessed April 2, 2021.
Available at: https://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/Joint-SW-Systems-Safety-Engineering-Handbook.pdf.
Leveson, N.G. 2016 reprint edition. Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available athttps://mitpress.mit.edu/books/engineering-safer-world.
Leveson, N.G. 2012. “Complexity and safety.” In Complex Systems Design & Management, ed. Omar Hammami,
Daniel Krob, and Jean-Luc Voirin, 27–39. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at http:/ /
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25203-7_2.
NASA. 2004. NASA Software Safety Guidebook. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https:/ / standards. nasa. gov/
standard/nasa/nasa-gb-871913.
SAE. 1996. Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and
Equipment. ARP 4761. Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Accessed April 2, 2021. Availabl:
https://www.sae.org/standards/content/arp4761/.
SAE. 2010. Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems. ARP 4754. Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of
Automotive Engineers. Accessed April 2, 2021. Available at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/arp4754a/.
System Safety 1050

System Security
Lead Author: Mark Winstead, Contributing Authors: Terri Chan and Keith Willett
Security is freedom from those conditions that may lead to loss of assets (anything of value) with undesired
consequences (Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley 2022). Systems Security specifically is concerned with systems
delivering capability (an asset) with intended and only intended behaviors and outcomes (no unacceptable
consequences such as loss of asset integrity) in contested operational environments (cyberspace or physical).
Restated, Systems Security is about engineering for intended and authorized system behavior and outcomes despite
anticipated and unanticipated adversity, conditions that may cause loss (e.g., threats, attacks, hazards, disruptions,
exposures). (McEvilley & Winstead 2022)
Note: This is a completely new article inserted in SEBoK 2.9, replacing the previous version by Richard Fairley,
Alice Squires, and Keith Willett which originally appeared in SEBoK 1.0 and was periodically updated through
SEBoK 2.8.
Overview
Secure systems ideally have three essential characteristics (Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley 2022):
• Enable required system capability delivery despite intentional and unintentional forms of adversity.
• Enforce constraints to ensure only the desired behaviors and outcomes associated with the required capability are
realized while realizing the first characteristic.
• Enforce constraints based on a set of rules defining the only authorized interactions and operations allowed to
occur while satisfying the second characteristic.
Desired behaviors and outcomes are those reflecting the delivery of the desired system capabilities and features
without experiencing loss with undesired consequences, such as loss of information privacy.
While these characteristics are to be achieved to the extent practicable, gaps will occur between the ideal and what
can be dependably achieved. A system should be as secure as reasonably practical (ASARP) while meeting
minimum stakeholder expectations for security and optimized among other performance objectives and constraints,
informed by the principle of commensurate trustworthiness – trustworthy to a level commensurate with the most
significant adverse effect resulting from loss or failure. (Hild, McEvilley, & Winstead 2021)
Secure systems ideally have three essential characteristics (Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley 2022):
• Enable required system capability delivery despite intentional and unintentional forms of adversity.
• Enforce constraints to ensure only the desired behaviors and outcomes associated with the required capability are
realized while realizing the first characteristic.
• Enforce constraints based on a set of rules defining the only authorized interactions and operations allowed to
occur while satisfying the second characteristic.
Desired behaviors and outcomes are those reflecting delivery of the desired system capabilities and features without
experiencing loss with undesired consequences, such as loss of information privacy.
While these characteristics are to be achieved to the extent practicable, gaps will occur between the ideal and what
can be dependably achieved. A system should be as secure as reasonably practical (ASARP) while meeting
minimum stakeholder expectations for security and optimized among other performance objectives and constraints,
informed by the principle of commensurate trustworthiness – trustworthy to a level commensurate with the most
significant adverse effect resulting from loss or failure. (Hild, McEvilley, & Winstead 2021)
Figure 1. System Security and Cost/Schedule/other Performance (Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley, 2022 - Public Domain)
To understand the optimization of security among other performance objectives, stakeholders need to be aligned and
respectful of each other’s needs. As loss and loss effects or consequences are easily understood, a collaborative
understanding of loss tolerances provides a means to alignment as well as forms a basis for metrics across the system
lifecycle. (Dove, et al. 2023)
Why Security?
Security, one of 10 acknowledged areas of growing stakeholder expectations in INCOSE’s Systems Engineering
Vision 2035, is recognized as needed to become a foundational perspective for system design. (INCOSE 2021) This
growing expectation is motivated by increasing cyberspace-based attacks as evidenced by reports such as Security
Magazine’s report for computers with Internet access, an attack occurred every 39 seconds in 2017 and has increased
since (Security 2017) by observations from the conflict in Ukraine (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
2023) including attacks on civilian targets such as critical infrastructure, and many well-publicized exploited
vulnerable systems. (Agile IT 2023)
Scope
Adversity, conditions that can cause a loss of assets (e.g., threats, attacks, vulnerabilities, hazards, disruptions, and
exposures), occurs throughout the system lifecycle. Such conditions are internal and external to the system, with
internal conditions often the result of faults and defects (e.g., missing requirements, implementation errors).
Consequently, system security’s scope matches systems engineering’s scope, and every systems engineering process
and activity has security considerations. (Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley 2022)
“Unless security is [engineered] into a system from its inception, there is little chance that it can be made secure by
retrofit”. (Anderson 1972) Consequently, security must be a foundational perspective from concept exploration.
Assets
An asset is an item of value to a stakeholder. Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley (2022) identified broad asset classes,
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Common Asset Classes (Ross, Winstead, and McEvilley, 2022 - Public Domain)
Class Description Loss Protection Criteria
Material Resources Includes Material resources are protected from loss if they are not stolen,
and Infrastructure • physical property (e.g., buildings, facilities, damaged, or destroyed or are able to function or be used as intended,
equipment) as needed, and when needed.
• physical resources (e.g., water, fuel). Infrastructure is protected from loss if it meets performance
• basic physical and organizational structures and expectations while delivering only the authorized and intended
facilities (i.e., infrastructure) needed for an capability and producing only the authorized and intended outcomes
activity or the operation of an enterprise or
society.
An infrastructure commonly comprised of assets,
such as a nation’s national airspace infrastructure,
which includes the nation’s airports
System Capability The set of capabilities and services provided by a System capability is protected from loss when it meets its
system performance expectations while delivering only the authorized and
intended capability and producing only the authorized and intended
outcomes.
Human Resources Personnel who are part of the system and personnel Human resources are protected from loss if they are not injured,
affected by the system suffer illness, or killed.
Intellectual Property Trade secrets, recipes, technology, and other items Intellectual property is protected from loss if it is not stolen,
that constitute an advantage over competitors corrupted, destroyed, copied, substituted in an unauthorized manner,
or reverse-engineered in an unauthorized manner.
Data and Includes all types of data and information and all Data and information are protected from loss due to unauthorized
Information encodings and representations of data and alteration, exfiltration, infiltration, and destruction.
information
Derivative Includes image, reputation, and trust. Such assets are Non-tangible assets are protected from loss by ensuring the adequate
Non-Tangible affected by the success or failure to protect other protection of assets in the other classes.
assets
Systems Thinking
Systems thinking is the practice of thinking holistically about systems: relating systems behaviors and concepts to
principles based on patterns. It is flexible, conceptual, and strategic in nature: hence generally adapted in systems
architecture work. Systems thinking focuses not on immediate cause and effect, but also examines the dynamics of a
system to identify secondary effects on behaviors and choices. (Goodman 2018)
Security, especially cybersecurity, has suffered from being treated as a tactics problem, focusing on threat defense
and incident response. Security has also become a forensics exercise, steeped in root cause analysis, to add to the
known threat defense. Systems thinking realizes the greater objective is assuring a systems’ ability to produce the
capability (functions and services) that users depend on the system for and contributing to business and mission
needs and produce that capability in an acceptable manner (i.e., no harm to stakeholder assets). The need is to focus
less on efforts to defend against adversarial action beyond the control of the systems engineer and more on assuring
the system performs and protects stakeholder assets, controlling the system from effects of loss, to include avoiding
vulnerability that leads to loss when practical. (Young & Leveson 2013) Systems thinking brings security back into
the conceptual, design, and implementation of systems capabilities.
Consequently, the need is to focus on a system’s trustworthiness rather than singularly focus on risk. (Dove, et al.
2021) Quality evidence such as that generated by verification and validation activities feed assurance arguments that
merit trustworthiness, providing a basis for trust by stakeholders. Without such assurance, security functionality is a
form of veneer security (Saydjari 2018), providing an unmerited sense of trustworthiness.
Loss
Loss, the experience of having an asset taken away or destroyed or the failure to keep or to continue to have an asset
in a desired state or form (Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley 2022), provides language understood by all stakeholders
(Dove, et al. 2023). Stakeholder concern is typically the effects of loss caused by adversity, not the adversity itself,
and their priorities driven by consequences (e.g., impact to mission). Their needs and requirements can thus be
expressed in terms of loss, loss scenarios, loss tolerance, and acceptable loss.
Addressing loss must consider loss results from combinations of adverse events or conditions that cause or lead to
unacceptable ramifications, consequences, or impacts. Due to uncertainty (including uncertainty about adversity),
guaranteeing a loss will not occur is not possible. The focus must be on controlling loss effects, including cascading
or ripple events; e.g., the effect causes additional losses to occur. (Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley 2022)
Loss control objectives frame addressing loss. Loss can be addressed by use of historically-informed practices
(known good things to do) and assessing specific loss scenarios for opportunities to address conditions and the
potential loss itself.
Table 2. Los Control Objectives (Ross, Winstead, and McEvilley, 2022 - Public Domain)
Loss Control Discussion
Objective
Prevent the Loss *Loss is avoided. Despite the presence of adversity:

from Occurring
• The system provides only the intended behavior and produces only the intended outcomes.
• Desired properties of the system and assets are retained.
• Achieved by combinations of:
• Preventing or removing the event or events that cause the loss
• Preventing or removing the condition or conditions that allow the loss to occur
• Not suffering an adverse effect despite the events or conditions (e.g., fault tolerance)
Limit the Extent of *Loss can or has occurred. The loss effect extent is to be limited.
Loss
• Achieved by combinations of:

• Limiting dispersion (e.g., propagation, ripple, or cascading effects)
• Limiting duration (e.g., milliseconds, minutes, days)
• Limiting capacity (e.g., diminished service or capability)
• Limiting volume (e.g., bits or bytes of data/information)
• Decisions to limit loss extent may require prioritizing what constitutes acceptable loss across a set of losses (i.e., limiting
the loss of one asset requires accepting loss of some other asset).
• Loss recovery and loss delay are two means to limit loss:
• Loss Recovery: Action is taken by the system or enabled by the system to recover (or allow the recovery of) some or
all its ability to function and to recover assets used by the system. Asset restoration can limit the dispersion, duration,
capacity, or volume of the loss.
• Loss Delay: The loss event is avoided until the adverse effect is lessened or when a delay enables a more robust
response or quicker recovery.
Loss Scenarios
Loss scenarios describe the events and conditions that lead to unacceptable outcomes. These scenarios do not
necessarily lead back to “root causes” in each case, but must capture the internal system (e.g., system states, internal
faults) and the external environmental conditions (e.g., loss of power, presence of malicious insider threat) that may
lead to a loss, including unauthorized system use (e.g., loss of control). See Figure 2.
Figure 2. Hierarchy of Unacceptable Conditions (OUSD(R&E) 2022 - Public Domain)
Loss scenarios may be analyzed to inform requirements definition and derivation and analyze design alternatives, as
well as inform tailoring of historically-informed practice usage.
Enterprise Relationships
Most systems are part of a larger system of systems or enterprises. Adversity often comes through or from these
connected systems.
Systems engineering must balance a system’s self-protection capability with opportunities for mutual collaborative
protection (Dove, et al. 2021) with trustworthy systems within an enterprise. Enterprises may have dedicated systems
for protection, often within network operations and security centers (NOSCs). (Knerler, Parker, & Zimmerman
2022) Systems may also collaborate by sharing situational awareness, with one system alerting others of suspicious
activity that may indicate malicious actions others may experience.
Systems Security has commonality and synergy with many other disciplines, such as safety; quality management;
reliability, availability, and maintenance (RAM); survivability; operational risk management; and resilience.
Overlapping concerns exist with assets, losses, and adversities considered; requirements; and various engineering
processes and analyses similarities and opportunities; e.g., System Theoretic Process Analysis, or STPA (Young &
Leveson 2013). Some considerations for pursuing these commonalities and synergies were explored in Brtis (2020).
Systems security engineering is a sub-discipline of systems engineering, defined in Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley
(2022) as a transdisciplinary and integrative approach to enable the successful secure realization, use, and retirement
of engineered systems using systems, security, and other principles and concepts, as well as scientific, technological,
and management methods. Systems security engineers are part of the systems engineering teams.
But as security is demonstrated in a system’s behaviors and outcomes, systems engineering responsibility, the
systems engineer is ultimately responsible for a system’s security. (Thomas 2013) However, reflecting the maxim
“Security is everyone’s job”, all engineering disciplines have security responsibilities (Dove, et al. 2021), not just the
systems engineer and various specialists in areas like supply chain assurance, hardware assurance, software
assurance, cybersecurity, and physical security.
Security in the Future of Systems Engineering

The INCOSE SE Vision 2035 sets an aim that security “will be as foundational a perspective in systems design as
system performance and safety are today”. (INCOSE 2021) To that end and other aims for security within the Vision,
the INCOSE Systems Security Engineering Working Group has set objectives and roadmap concepts (Dove 2022).
Roadmap Concept General Needs to Fill
Security Proficiency in the Systems System security and its evolution effectively enabled by systems engineering activity.
Engineering Team
Education and Competency Education at all levels focused on security of cyber-physical systems.
Development
Stakeholder Alignment Common security vision and knowledge among all stakeholders.
Loss-Driven Engineering Standard metrics and abstractions relevant to all system lifecycle phases.
Architectural Agility Readily composable and re-composable security with feature variants.
Operational Agility Ability for cyber-relevant response to attack and potential threat; resilience in security system.
Capability-Based Security Engineering Top-down approach to security starting with desired results/value.
Security as a Functional Requirement Systems engineering responsibility for the security of systems.
Modeled Trustworthiness Reinvigorate formal modeling of system trust as a core aspect of system security engineering; address
issues of scale with model-based tools and automation.
Security Orchestration Tightly coupled coordinated system defense in cyber-relevant time.
Collaborative Mutual Protection Augmented detection and mitigation of known and unknown attacks with components collaborating for
mutual protection.
Challenges
The challenging problems for system security are numerous. Some of this is a result of neglecting the addressing of
security early in the system life cycle as recognized by the Systems Engineering Vision call for security to be a
foundational perspective – as Carl Landwehr wrote “This whole economic boom in [security] seems largely to be a
consequence of poor engineering” (Landwehr 2015).
For example, system of systems engineering security faces challenges in part to not knowing or trusting the
component systems which may not have been engineered with security in mind, or at least did not consider
documenting the evidence that informs trustworthiness. Another system of systems challenge comes as formerly
isolated cyber-physical systems (CPSs) are increasingly connected to form larger system of systems, negating
assumptions impacting security if security was considered at all. Additionally, legacy CPSs were not built thinking
of the need to update the software; i.e. use sustainable security (Rosser 2023)), which creates a challenge in
upgrading software to reflect revised assumptions and security models for the CPS in question.
Another challenge comes with the advancing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Any new technology presents
security challenges until its usage matures, but AI introduces complexity and decreases predictability (INCOSE
2021). Managing complexity and uncertainty is necessary for security (Ross, Winstead, & McEvilley 2022), and AI
increasing of both compounds the problem space for systems engineering security.
References
Works Cited
Agile IT. n.d.. The Top 10 Biggest Cyberattacks of 2022. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ / www.
agileit.com/news/biggest-cyberattacks-2022/.
Anderson, J. 1972. Computer Security Technology Planning Study, Technical Report ESD-TR-73-51. October 1,
1972. Hanscom AFB: Air Force Electronic Systems Division. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ /
apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0758206.
Brtis, J. (ed). 2020. Loss-Driven Systems Engineering. INCOSE Insight, 23(4):7-8. Wiley. Accessed September 15,
2023. Available at https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/inst.12312.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. n.d.. Cyber Conflict in the Russia-Ukraine War. Accessed September
15, 2023. Available at https://carnegieendowment.org/programs/technology/cyberconflictintherussiaukrainewar/.
Dove, R. 2022. “Setting Current Context for Security in the Future of Systems Engineering”. INCOSE Insight,
25(2):8-10.
Dove, R., K. Willett, T. McDermott, H. Dunlap, H, D.P. MacNamara, and C. Ocker. 2021. “Security in the Future of
Systems Engineering (FuSE), a Roadmap of Foundational Concepts”. Proceedings of the 31st INCOSE International
Symposium, July 17-22. Virtual only,
Dove, R., M. Winstead, H. Dunlap, M. Hause, A. Scalco, A. Scalco, A. Williams, and B. Wilson. 2023.
“Democratizing Systems Security”. Proceedings of the 33rd INCOSE International Symposium. July 15-20.
Honolulu, Hawaii: Wiley.
Goodman, M. 2018. Systems Thinking: What, Why, When, Where, and How? Accessed September 15, 2023.
Available at https://thesystemsthinker.com/systems-thinking-what-why-when-where-and-how/
Hild, D., M. McEvilley, and M. Winstead. 2021. Principles for Trustworthy Design of Cyber-Physical Systems.
MITRE Technical Report, MTR210263.
INCOSE. 2021. INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2035. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ /
www.incose.org/about-systems-engineering/se-vision-2035
Knerler, K., I. Parker, and C. Zimmerman. 2022. 11 Strategies of a World-Class Cybersecurity Operations Center
(2nd ed.). McLean, VA: MITRE. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/
files/2022-04/11-strategies-of-a-world-class-cybersecurity-operations-center.pdf
Landwehr, C. 2015. “We Need a Building Code for Building Code”. Communcations of the ACM, 58(2):24-26.
Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/2700341
McEvilley, M., and M. Winstead. 2022. “Functionally Interpreting Security”. INCOSE Insight, 25(2):15-17. Wiley.
Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/inst.12380
OUSD(R&E). 2022. Security and Resilience Interpretation 1.0. Prepared by MITRE. Accessed September 2023.
Available at https://www.crws-bok.org/asset/83a0d3528e6e27272a52b7e2c3758facc16773fd
Ross, R., M. Winstead, M., M. McEvilley. 2022. Engineering Trustworthy Secure Systems. NIST SP 800-160
Volume 1 Revision 1. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ / csrc. nist. gov/
pubs/sp/800/160/v1/r1/final
Rosser, L.A. 2023. “Applying Agility for Sustainable Security”. INCOSE Insight, 26(2):45-52. Wiley. Accessed
September 15, 2023. Available at https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/inst.12445
Saydjari, O.S. (ed.). 2018. Engineering Trustworthy Systems: Get Cybersecurity Design Right the First Time. New
York: McGraw Hill. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. amazon. com/
Engineering-Trustworthy-Systems-Cybersecurity-Design/dp/1260118177
Security. 2017. Hackers Attack Every 39 Seconds. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ / www.
securitymagazine.com/articles/87787-hackers-attack-every-39-seconds
Thomas, J.A. 2013. “Critical System Behaviors of The Future”. INCOSE Insight, 16(2):3-5. Wiley.
Young, W. and N. Leveson. 2013. “Systems Thinking for Safety and Security”. Proceedings of the 29th Annual
Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '13), pp. 31-35. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/96965
Primary References
Anderson, R. 2020. Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems (3rd Edition).
Wiley. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ / www. amazon. com/
Security-Engineering-Building-Dependable-Distributed/dp/1119642787
Neumann P. 2004. Principled Assuredly Trustworthy Composable Architectures, CDRL A001 Final Report, SRI
International, Menlo Park, CA. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ / ieeexplore. ieee. org/ document/
1335465
Ross, R., M. Winstead, M., and M. McEvilley. 2022. Engineering Trustworthy Secure Systems. NIST SP 800-160
Volume 1 Revision 1. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ / csrc. nist. gov/
pubs/sp/800/160/v1/r1/final
Avizienis A., J. Laprie, B. Randell. and C. Landwehr C. “Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure
Computing”. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 1(1):11-33. Accessed September 15, 2023.
Available at http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/chats4.pdf
DoD. 1983. DoD Standard 5200.28-STD Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria. Accessed September 15,
2023. Available at http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/chats4.pdf
National Security Agency. 2002. Information Assurance Technical Framework (IATF), Release 3.1. Accessed
September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ / ntrl. ntis. gov/ NTRL/ dashboard/ searchResults/ titleDetail/ ADA606355.
xhtml
Schroeder M.D., D.D. Clark, and J.H. Saltzer. 1977. “The Multics Kernel Design Project”. Proceedings of Sixth
ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. Accessed September 15, 2023. Available at https:/ / dl. acm.
org/doi/pdf/10.1145/800214.806546
Videos
Keith Willett previously authored a series of videos that explain aspects of systems security. They are not referenced
in the above article, but remain quite relevant and interesting viewing.

1059
Part 7: SE Implementation Examples
Systems Engineering Implementation Examples

Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Richard Turner
Part 7 is a collection of systems engineering (SE) implementation examples to illustrate the principles described in
the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) Parts 1-6. These examples describe the application of SE
practices, principles, and concepts in real settings.
Figure 1 SEBoK Part 7 in context (Modified from Adcock et al. 2016). For more detail see
Structure of the SEBoK
The intent is to provide typical instances of the application of systems engineering (SE) and relate these to key SE
principles and concepts from the rest of the SEBoK. This can improve the practice of SE by illustrating to students,
educators, and practitioners the benefits of effective practice, as well as the risks and liabilities of poor practice.
A published case study will typically describe aspects of the practice of SE in a particular situation and then provide
comments and critique of that practice. Where possible, examples in the SEBoK refer to published case studies and
relate the discussions in them to appropriate areas of the SEBoK. In some case, good or bad examples of SE practice
are available but have not been documented in a case study. In these cases the SEBoK authors have described and
commented on these examples directly.
A matrix of implementation examples is used to map these examples to main topics in the SEBoK which they cover.
More examples will be added over time to highlight the different aspects and applications of SE. In addition, new
examples can be added to demonstrate the evolving state of practice, such as the application of model-based SE and
the engineering of complex, adaptive systems.

Part 7 is organized in the following way:
• Matrix of Implementation Examples
• Implementation Examples
Value of Implementation Examples

Learning from critical examples has been used for decades in medicine, law, and business to help students learn
fundamentals and to help practitioners improve their practice. A Matrix of Implementation Examples is used to show
the alignment of systems engineering case studies to specific areas of the SEBoK. This matrix is intended to provide
linkages between each implementation example to the discussion of the systems engineering principles illustrated.
The selection of examples covers a variety of sources, domains, and geographic locations. Both effective and
ineffective use of systems engineering principles are illustrated.
The United States Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AF CSE) has developed a set of case studies "to
facilitate learning by emphasizing the long-term consequences of the systems engineering/programmatic decisions
on cost, schedule, and operational effectiveness." (USAF Center for Systems Engineering 2011) The AF CSE is
using these cases to enhance SE curriculum. The cases are structured using the Friedman-Sage framework (Friedman
and Sage 2003; Friedman and Sage 2004, 84-96), which decomposes a case into contractor, government, and shared
responsibilities in the following nine concept areas:
2. Systems Architecture Development
3. System/Subsystem Design
4. Verification/Validation
5. Risk Management
6. Systems Integration and Interfaces
7. Life Cycle Support
8. Deployment and Post Deployment
9. System and Program Management
This framework forms the basis of the case study analysis carried out by the AF CSE. Two of these case studies are
highlighted in this SEBoK section, the Hubble Space Telescope Case Study and the Global Positioning System Case
Study.
The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a catalog of more than fifty
NASA-related case studies (NASA 2011). These case studies include insights about both program management and
systems engineering. Varying in the level of detail, topics addressed, and source organization, these case studies are
used to enhance learning at workshops, training, retreats, and conferences. The use of case studies is viewed as
important by NASA since "organizational learning takes place when knowledge is shared in usable ways among
organizational members. Knowledge is most usable when it is contextual" (NASA 2011). Case study teaching is a
method for sharing contextual knowledge to enable reapplication of lessons learned. The MSTI Case Study is from
this catalog.
References
Works Cited
Adcock, R., N. Hutchison, C. Nielsen, 2016, "Defining an architecture for the Systems Engineering Body of
Knowledge," Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon) 2016.
Friedman, G.R., and A.P. Sage. 2003. Systems Engineering Concepts: Illustration Through Case Studies.
Friedman, G.R., and A.P. Sage. 2004. "Case Studies of Systems Engineering and Management in Systems
Acquisition." Systems Engineering. 7 (1): 84-96.
NASA. 2011. A Catalog of NASA-Related Case Studies. Goddard Space Flight Center: Office of the Chief
Knowledge Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Updated June 2011. Accessed
September 2011. Available: http:/ / www. nasa. gov/ centers/ goddard/ pdf/
450420main_NASA_Case_Study_Catalog.pdf.
United States Air Force (USAF) Center for Systems Engineering. 2011. Why Case Studies?. Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio, USA: Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), US Air Force. Accessed September 2011.
Available: http://www.afit.edu/cse/cases.cfm.
Primary References
Friedman, G., and A.P. Sage. 2004. "Case studies of systems engineering and management in systems acquisition".
Systems Engineering 7(1): 84-96.
Gorod, A., B.E. White, V. Ireland, S.J. Gandhi, and B.J. Sauser. 2014. Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise
Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
NASA. A Catalog of NASA-Related Case Studies. Greenbelt, MD, USA: Office of the Chief Knowledge Officer,
Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Updated June 2011.
Accessed December 5, 2014 at NASA http:/ / www. nasa. gov/ centers/ goddard/ pdf/
United States Air Force (USAF) Center for Systems Engineering. 2011. Why Case Studies?. Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, OH, USA: Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT).
None.

Matrix of Implementation Examples

Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Alice Squires, Tom Hilburn, Contributing Authors: Alex Lee, John Brackett, Richard
Turner
The following matrix maps the Systems Engineering Implementation Examples to topics in the Systems Engineering
Body of Knowledge (SEBoK). It provides both a list of systems engineering implementation examples for topics of
interest, and a list of relevant topics for each implementation example. Since the number of topics in the SEBoK is
extensive, only a subset is included here for clarity. For additional information, see the example of interest and the
corresponding SEBoK topic.
Organization and Mapping of Examples to the SEBoK

The following short titles shown in Table 1 are used for the implementation examples:
Table 1. Short Titles for the SEBoK Examples. (SEBoK Original)

Case Studies
BT Business Transformation
ATC NextGen Air Traffic Control
NASA NASA's Mission to Saturn
HST Hubble Space Telescope
GPS Global Positioning System
GPS II Global Positioning System II
Radiation Medical Radiation
FBI VCF FBI Virtual Case File System
MSTI Miniature Seeker Technology Integration
Infusion Pump Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump
DfM Design for Maintainability
CAS Complex Adaptive Operating System
PM Project Management
TS Taxi Service
SWFTS SWFTS MBSE
Bag Handling Denver Airport Baggage Handling System
VA Sub Virginia Class Submarine
Route Mod UK West Coast Route Modernisation Project
Water Mgmt Singapore Water Management
FAA AAS FAA Advanced Automation System
Light Rail Standard Korean Light Transit System
TMT Thirty-Meter Telescope
Table 2 shows how the topics (each row) align with the first set of implementation examples (each column):
Table 2. Implementation Examples based on published case studies. (SEBoK Original)

SEBoK Topic BT ATC NASA HST GPS GPS Radiation FBI MSTI Infusion DfM CAS PM TS SWFTS NHS
II VCF Pump
Systems Thinking X X X X X X X X X
Models and X X X X X X
Simulation
Product Systems X X X X X
Engineering
Service Systems X X X X
Engineering
Enterprise Systems X X X X X X X
Engineering
Systems of Systems X X X X X
(SoS)
Life Cycle Models X X X X X X X X
Business or Mission X X X X X X X
Analysis
Stakeholder Needs X X X X X X X X X
and Requirements
System Requirements X X X X X X X
System Architecture X X X X X X
System Analysis X X X X X
System X X X
Implementation
System Integration X X X X X X X X X
System Verification X X X X X
System Validation X X X X X X
System Deployment X X X
Operation of the X X X X X X
System
System Maintenance X
Logistics
Planning X X X X X X
Assessment and X X X X X
Control
Risk Management X X X X X X X X X
Measurement X
Decision Management X X X X X
Configuration X X X X X
Management
Information X X X X
Management
Quality Management X
Enabling Systems X X X X X X X X X
Engineering
Related Disciplines X X X X X
Table 3 shows how the topics (each row) align with the second set of implementation examples (each column):
Table 3. Implementation Examples Developed for SEBoK. (SEBoK Original)

SEBoK Topic (Part 3) Bag Handling VA Sub Route Mod Water Mgmt FAA AAS Light Rail
Business or Mission Analysis X X X
Stakeholder Needs and Requirements X X X
System Requirements X X X
System Architecture X X X X X
System Analysis X X X X
System Implementation X
System Integration X X X
System Verification X X X
System Validation X X X
System Deployment X
Operation of the System X X
System Maintenance X
Logistics X
Planning X X X X X
Assessment and Control X X
Risk Management X X X X X
Measurement X
Decision Management X X X
Configuration Management X X X
Information Management X
Quality Management X
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
None.
None.

Characteristics of the organization(s) which perform SE have an impact on the engineering itself. It is for this reason
that the examples are grouped into three categories: government examples, commercial examples, and examples
which represent issues from both ("combined"). As the SEBoK continues to evolve, additional categorizations may
be developed. A matrix is used to map the specific systems engineering principles illustrated in each example to the
associated SEBoK topics.
SEBoK Examples
• Construction System Examples - Coming Soon!
• CyberPhysical System Examples - Coming Soon!
• Defense System Examples
• Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems
• Virginia Class Submarine
• Geospatial System Examples - Coming Soon!
• Information System Examples
• Complex Adaptive Taxi Service Scheduler
• FBI Virtual Case File System
• Management System Examples
• Project Management for a Complex Adaptive Operating System
• Medical System Examples
• Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump
• Medical Radiation
• Design for Maintainability
• Space System Examples
• Global Positioning System Case Study II
• Russian Space Agency Project Management Systems
• Hubble Space Telescope

• Applying a Model-Based Approach to Support Requirements Analysis on the Thirty-Meter Telescope
• Miniature Seeker Technology Integration Spacecraft
• Apollo 1 Disaster
• Transportation System Examples
• Denver Airport Baggage Handling System
• FAA Advanced Automation System (AAS)
• UK West Coast Route Modernisation Project
• Standard Korean Light Transit System Vignette
• Utilities Examples
• Northwest Hydro System
• Singapore Water Management
Characterization of Examples
Systems engineering (SE) principles described in the SEBoK Parts 1-6 are illustrated in Part 7, Systems Engineering
Implementation Examples. These examples describe the application of systems engineering practices, principles, and
concepts in real settings and can be used to improve the practice of systems engineering by illustrating to students,
practitioners, and those new to SE the benefits of effective practice and the risks of poor practice.
The examples here have been developed by examining previously published case studies from external sources that
demonstrate the real-world examples of systems engineering principles. These case studies were then summarized by
the BKCASE team. The summaries include links to the original documentation as well as links to the relevant areas
of the SEBoK highlighted in the example.
Systems engineering (SE) examples can be characterized in terms of at least two relevant parameters, viz., their
degrees of complexity and engineering difficulty. Although a so-called quad chart is likely an oversimplification, a 2
x 2 array can be used to make a first-order characterization, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Case Study Profiler (SEBoK Original)
The x-axis depicts complicated, the simplest form of complexity, at the low-end on the left, and complex,
representing the range of all higher forms of complexity on the right. The y-axis suggests how difficult it might be to
engineer (or re-engineer) the system to be improved, using Conventional (classical or traditional) SE, at the low-end
on the bottom, and Complex SE, representing all more sophisticated forms of SE, on the top. This upper range is
intended to cover system of systems (SoS) engineering (SoSE), enterprise systems engineering (ESE), as well as
Complex SE (CSE).The distinctions among these various forms of SE may be explored by visiting other sections of
the SEBoK. In summary, the SEBoK case study editors have placed each case study in one of these four quadrants to
provide readers with a suggested characterization of their case study's complexity and difficulty. For sake of
compactness the following abbreviations have been used:
• Business Transformation (Successful Business Transformation within a Russian Information Technology
Company)
• NextGen ATC (Federal Aviation Administration Next Generation Air Transportation System)
• Saturn Mission (How Lack of Information Sharing Jeopardized the NASA/ESA Cassini/Huygens Mission to
Saturn)
• Hubble (Hubble Space Telescope Case Study)
• GPS and GPS II (Global Positioning System Case Study)
• Medical Radiator (Medical Radiation Case Study)
• FBI Case Files (FBI Virtual Case File System Case Study)
• Small Satellite MSTI (MSTI Case Study)
• Medical Infusion Pump (Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump Case Study)
• Incubator Maintainability Design (Design for Maintainability)
• Complex Adaptive Operations (Complex Adaptive Operating System)
• Taxi Scheduler (The Development of the First Real-Time Complex Adaptive Scheduler for a London Taxi
Service)
• Project Management (The Development of a Real-Time Complex Adaptive Project Management System)
• SWFTS MBSE (Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems Case Study)
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
None.
None.

1068
Defense System Examples
Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems

This article describes the transformation of the systems engineering and integration program that produces the
common combat system used across the United States Navy (USN) submarine fleet from traditional document-based
systems engineering (DBSE) to model-based systems engineering (MBSE).. The topic may be of particular interest
to those dealing with programs in the sustainment and evolution phase of their life cycle. For addition information,
refer to the links provided in Section V, Lessons Learned below.
Background
Modern submarines are typically in service for 20 - 40 years. Historically, each new class of submarines has been
equipped with a new combat system, with a corresponding logistics and sustainment tail unique to that class.
Submarines and their internal systems are commonly state-of-the-practice at launch, but most navies find it
necessary to upgrade the ship’s combat system at least once during the operational lifetime. The evolution of threats,
technology and interoperability drives the USN to upgrade their submarine combat systems and key components
including the sonar (Fages 1998) (Ford and Dillard 2009) and tactical control systems continuously (Jacobus and
Barrett 2002).
Over the last three decades submarine combat systems have evolved from multiple independent systems (sonar,
combat control, imaging, electronic warfare, weapon control, etc.) with manual or point-to-point interfaces into
networked federations of systems (FoS). Confusingly, these component systems are often referred to as subsystems
in the literature.
Figure 1. 1985-era submarine combat system composed from independent component systems with point-to-point interfaces (SEBoK Original)
In the USN, each of these component systems has its own acquisition program, customer, and contractor team.
Starting as legacy military systems hosted on traditional military-unique computational platforms, these systems
have evolved to utilize Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) computational and networking platforms, and leverage
large amounts of COTS software.
As the component systems became more tightly interconnected, the acquisition customers established and
collaboratively funded a systems engineering and integration (SE&I) program to manage the interfaces between
systems, manage technology insertion and the obsolescence of common COTS components, and to integrate and test
the production systems (Cooper, Sienkiewicz and Oliver 2006). Starting with the Virginia class, this SE&I program
was expanded to encompass both new-production and in-service submarine modernization efforts. Over time, the
combat systems of the various USN submarine classes were converged into variants of a single product line
(Zingarelli, et al. 2010).
Purpose
The submarine combat system SE&I program delivers an updated production baseline annually, along with product
line variants for each submarine class or subclass being built or upgraded that year. Production systems
implementing this baseline are delivered to new-build submarines, and to in-service submarines being upgraded on a
roughly six-year cycle. The common combat system product line is referred to as the Submarine Warfare Federated
Tactical Systems (SWFTS). SWFTS is deployed by the USN on submarines of the Los Angeles (SSN 688), Ohio
(SSGN 726, SSBN 730), Seawolf (SSN 21), and Virginia (SSN 774) classes, and by the Royal Australian Navy on
the Collins (SSG 73) class. SWFTS is also planned for the next-generation USN Columbia (SSBN) class. Compared
to the submarine combat systems that it replaced, SWFTS significantly reduces development, maintenance and
training costs while delivering enhanced combat capabilities and facilitating the rapid insertion of new or improved
capabilities (Zingarelli, et al. 2010).
Figure 2. Contemporary submarine combat systems are networked with converged data interfaces (Produced by Lockheed Martin
for US Navy. Approved for Public Release by US Navy, #16-348, June 2016)
Challenges
The USN submarine fleet encompasses substantial platform variability between class, sub-classes, and even
individual ships within a sub-class. The RAN Collins class contributes additional variability. Platform variability
drives combat system variability.
SWFTS is a Federation of Systems, with each platform hosting a subset of 40 systems produced by 20 different
program offices. As is common with system of systems (SoS) and FoS, there is no central program office that can
command the compliance of all of the component system programs. Instead, the evolution of SWFTS is executed
through negotiation and consensus.
Many baselines must be produced each year: new common hardware baselines are introduced in odd years, while
new common software baselines are introduced in even years (Jacobus, Yan and Barrett 2002). In addition, multiple
incremental developmental baselines are established each year. Once the annual production baseline for the product
line is defined, variants must be developed for each submarine class or subclass built or upgraded that year (Mitchell
2012).
Like most other defense programs, the SWFTS SE&I program is under constant pressure to accomplish more with
decreasing resources. There has been steady increase in SE scope despite decreasing budgets. Program leadership
has responded in part through continuous SE process improvement. Improvements have included test automation,
changes in the requirements management processes and tools (spreadsheets to IBM® Rational® DOORS® to
OMG® SysML®), refined tooling for change management, and the DBSE to MBSE transition that is the focus of
this case study. Substantial Return on Investment (ROI) has been achieved with each major SE process or tooling
improvement (Mitchell 2014, Rogers III and Mitchell 2021).
Systems Engineering Practices

During 2009 the SWFTS SE&I program conducted a Model Driven Architecture (MDA) study to determine if MDA
should be the next step in the program’s continuous SE process improvement. The MDA study predicted a positive
ROI from converting to MBSE. In January 2010 the SWFTS SE&I program office kicked-off a three-year effort to
develop and validate a SWFTS FoS model and MBSE process. In 2013 a SWFTS baseline was developed using both
DBSE and MBSE in parallel. The DBSE products were used to validate the MBSE products. Based on that
successful validation, the SWFTS SE&I program transitioned to MBSE for all ongoing work.
Until the transition in 2013, SWFTS SE was performed using traditional DBSE. Requirements were managed in
DOORS, and reviewed and used by engineers in the form of massive spreadsheets with hundreds of columns and
thousands of rows. The design of each variant was documented in Microsoft Office files. Baseline Change Requests
(BCR) were documented in briefings, and analyzed by all component system programs in parallel for potential
impact. Approved BCRs were manually merged into DOORS and into revised baseline documents for each effected
variant.
Starting in 2010, the customer community invested in a three-year MBSE transformation effort. The engineering
team performed an in-depth tool trade study to select and set up the MBSE environment. That trade study resulted in
the selection of MagicDraw™ for system modeling, using Teamwork™ as the model repository.
Once the modeling environment was installed, the MBSE transformation team architected, developed and populated
a SysML-based model of the SWFTS FoS interfaces. The team updated the SWFTS SE process to take advantage of
the new MBSE environment, with the constraint that the MBSE process produce SE products that were effectively
identical to those produced by the DBSE process.
As the SWFTS model was developed, unanticipated benefits emerged. Capturing the architecture in a model
improves the depth and quality of baseline products due to the fact that, unlike the spreadsheets it replaced, the
model inherently captures relationships between elements. Using the model, one can drill down and explore various
aspects of the architecture, e.g., a) the network design that supports data exchanges; b) component systems that use a
particular network Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN); c) service level requirements levied upon data providers.
In 2013 the new MBSE environment and process was used to produce a set of SWFTS baseline SE products. In
parallel, the DBSE process produced equivalent products. The two sets of baseline products were compared in detail,
with all differences traced back to root causes.
The relationships in the model also support automated integrity and consistency checking between model elements,
which is also called model concordance. Analysis of these relationships identified a significant number of minor
differences that were all traced to errors in the DBSE products. This validated the MBSE process, and demonstrated
that while those initial MBSE baseline products were more labor-intensive than the DBSE baseline products, the new
MBSE process produced higher quality products. After this validation, the SWFTS SE&I program switched over to
MBSE as their basic process.
Since that transformation, SE process improvement has continued apace. Requirements management has moved
from DOORS to the system model in MagicDraw. As of 2016, the system model is the baseline for requirements,
architecture and the FoS design. BCR impact analysis is now performed in model, leveraging capabilities of the
toolset for automated assistance. Variants are documented in the system model as system configurations. Most SE
products are generated from the system model on demand.
The MBSE process has been matured and refined over subsequent baseline development efforts. As the team
climbed the learning curve, the average cost of processing a BCR declined. New SE artifacts capturing specific
aspects of the FoS model were conceived and auto-generated from the model to improve communication with
targeted audiences. Where before the transition to MBSE it was not cost-effective to manually generate tailored SE
artifacts for individual systems, developing scripts to auto-generate tailored artifacts proved cost effective and
improved the efficiency of the component system developers. Additional scripts were developed to tailor the
modeling tool user interface and focus it on the specific activities performed by the SWFTS SE&I engineers.
MagicDraw™ has very extensive modeling capabilities with a correspondingly expansive user interface, and
tailoring the user interface both reduced the learning curve for new engineers coming onto the program and
streamlined routine SWFTS SE activities.
While the initial scope of MBSE was limited to managing the interfaces between component systems, once the
transition was successful MBSE started expanding out to encompass additional SWFTS SE&I tasks. MBSE is now
beginning to spread into the component system programs as well as the overall submarine combat system SE&I
program.
Return on Investment Achieved by Transitioning to MBSE

After the MBSE process reached a reasonable level of maturity, a retrospective analysis (Rogers III and Mitchell
2021) was performed to determine if the anticipated cost savings had been achieved. This analysis compared the
requirements database-managed 2010 baselines, which were generated using the mature common requirements
baseline and common change management process institutionalized by 2008, with the 2014 baselines built using the
mature MBSE process. This analysis made a quantitative comparison of the efficiencies between the legacy interface
requirements management process using the IBM DOORS® toolset, and the model-based interface requirements
management process employing the MagicDraw™ toolset.
These two distinct SWFTS baseline updates provided a good case study as both
• utilized the same high-level SWFTS process and contract,
• involved updating the lead boat in a new group of submarines added to the SWFTS SE&I program, and
• involved updates to a similar number of submarine classes.
The second bullet is key, since it suggests that the overall level of complexity of the requirements changes is similar
between the two sets of baselines.
The 2010 baseline developed using DOORS® will be referred to hereafter as the Legacy Process Baseline. The 2014
baseline developed using MBSE with the MagicDraw™ toolset will henceforth be referred to as the MBSE Baseline.
The timing of these two baselines in the context of the MBSE transition is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Timing of the Legacy Process Baseline and the MBSE Baseline relative to other SE process improvement.
(Rogers III and Mitchell 2021)
Since a requirement modification is the basic unit of systems engineering work depicting development needs at the
FoS level, it is a useful metric to compare the scope of the updates. As can be seen from Table 1, the MBSE Baseline
involved 42% more interface requirements changes than the Legacy Process, while consuming only 16% more
hours. Another way of looking at these numbers is that the SE hours per requirement decreased from 12.1 in the
Legacy baseline to 9.9 in the MBSE baseline. This is equivalent to saying that the MBSE process is 18% more
efficient than the older DBSE process. This exceeded the 13% improvement projected by the 2009 SWFTS pilot
study (Mitchell 2014).
Table 1. Summary of the SWFTS MBSE ROI Analysis Baselines. (Rogers III and Mitchell 2021)
In addition to the decrease in labor hours per requirements change, measurable improvements in quality were found.
A 9% reduction in total interface defects were discovered in the MBSE Baseline compared to the Legacy Process
Baseline. In addition, there was an 18% shift of defect discovery from platform integration testing to laboratory
integration testing with the MBSE Baseline. Estimates of the cost savings achieved by shifting defect eradication
from platform integration to laboratory integration range from 1.6x (Rogers III and Mitchell 2021) to 4x (Feiler et al.
2013), but in any case these savings can contribute significantly to the overall ROI.
Lessons Learned
Seven learning principles (LPs) (Friedman and Sage 2005) were derived that address the more broadly applicable
areas of systems engineering knowledge, and inform the areas of the SEBoK that are most strongly related to the
case study. They are:
• Requirements traceability (LP1);
• Communications (LP2);
• Productivity (LP3);
• Quality (LP4);
• Managing Change (LP5);
• Managing variants (LP6); and
• Life cycle (LP7).
Requirements traceability LP1: MBSE improves traceability in multiple dimensions, but maintaining requirements
traceability between a traditional database and the MBSE system model can be challenging. While DOORS,
MagicDraw and Teamwork can interoperate to provide requirements management and traceability, the combination
is fragile. Without careful configuration management, synchronization can lead to database corruption. If DOORS
and Teamwork are on separate servers, maintaining the connection can run afoul of ever-evolving corporate
information assurance policies.
Requirements can be managed using the SysML language inside the system model quite effectively. This approach
can reduce the resources needed to keep the system model in sync with a traditional requirements database system
and increase overall SE productivity.
Communications LP2: Tailored SE products generated from the system model can substantially enhance
communications both within the technical team and between customer stakeholders.
Graphical depictions of the system model often communicate better to human stakeholders than massive
spreadsheets and textual documents. Further, the enhanced precision driven by modeling can reduce
miscommunications between both technical and programmatic stakeholders.
Having the architecture and design in a system model makes it affordable to generate specialized SE products on
demand for particular communications needs while keeping all SE products in concordance. Even technical
stakeholders who thought they understood the design can find new insights by looking at it in different
representations.
Productivity LP3: MBSE increases productivity by enhancing communications within the team, automating routine
tasks and through cost avoidance.
DBSE processes often require substantial revision to achieve the potential productivity gains of MBSE. In particular,
review processes should be modified to take advantage of the tooling.
The modeling tools selected constrain how you can practically re-engineer SE processes. Automation can replace a
great deal of routine SE work (document generation, identifying potential impacts of changes, etc.).
Developing strong modeling style guidelines and specialized representations, along with training materials to
indoctrinate new team members as they join the program, is worth the investment. MBSE does require a trained
cadre of modelers, but not all systems engineers have to become skilled modelers.
To effectively quantify the benefits of MBSE, a program needs to plan metrics collection carefully, and then stick to
the plan long enough to collect meaningful data.
Quality LP4: Much of the ROI from the MBSE transition can be in improved quality. Improving the quality of SE
products enhances early discovery of defects, which reduces integration costs. It also reduces latent defects in
systems delivered to the customer, reducing maintenance costs and increasing customer satisfaction.
Models are less tolerant of imprecision than documents. The increased precision improves SE product quality, both
in reduced defect generation and in reduced defect escape.
The automation of product generation can make specialized SE products affordable, further enhancing system
quality.
Managing change LP5: How a proposed system change is understood and executed is fundamentally different
between a model- and a document-centric approach. In the document-centric approach, the focus is on “What should
my final output look like?” In the model-based approach, the focus is on “What does this change mean to the system?
Which other parts of the system are impacted by this change?”
Change management is hard. When moving from DBSE to MBSE you need to think carefully up front about what
approach you are going to take, and then design the system model to facilitate that approach. Change management
also impacts tool selection, since different tools align better with different approaches.
Managing variants LP6: The most common process for managing variants in DBSE is ‘clone and own’, where each
new product family member takes the then-current baseline and ‘forks’ the baseline for evolution of the variant. This
makes synchronizing changes to the core baseline across the product family a very labor-intensive process. Treating
variants as deviations from a core baseline in a model greatly reduces the cost of managing variation in a product
family.
Variant management is hard. You need to think about what approach you plan to take up front and design your
system model to accommodate it. The selected approach impacts tool selection and tailoring.
Design the system model to treat variants as deviations from the core baseline. Then changes to the core baseline are
automatically shared among all variants, and impact to product family members is limited to any impact of core
baseline change on specific variant deviations. This also facilitates commonality between variants, a key customer
goal as commonality reduces logistics and training costs.
Life cycle LP7: MBSE can be applied early or late in the product family life cycle. While most projects using MBSE
start off model-based, a program can transition to MBSE late in the life cycle.
Getting from DBSE to MBSE requires serious engineering, careful thought, planning and implementation. The
SWFTS MBSE transition required three years of investment by the customer. That time and budget was spent
primarily in designing and developing the system model and in re-engineering the SE processes.
Start the transition with carefully defined scope. Once that is accomplished you can expand the scope of MBSE from
there.
References
Works Cited
Cooper, D. J., J. Sienkiewicz, and M. Oliver, "System engineering and integration for submarine combat systems in
the COTS environment", NDIA Systems Engineering Conference, San Diego, CA, 23-26 October 2006.
Fages, H I. ‘Submarine programs: A resource sponsor’s perspective," The Submarine Review, July pp. 53–59, 1998.
Feiler, Peter H., John B. Goodenough, Arie Gurfinkel, Charles B. Weinstock and Lutz Wrage, “Four Pillars for
Improving the Quality of Safety-Critical Software-Reliant Systems”, CMU/SEI White Paper, April 2013. Accessed
10 Sept 2017 at http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA585679
Ford, D. N., and J. T. Dillard, "Modeling open architecture and evolutionary acquisition: implementation lessons
from the ARCI program for the Rapid Capability Insertion process ", Proceedings of the Sixth Acquisition Research
Symposium: Defense Acquisition in Transition 2 (Apr 2009): pp. 207- 235.
Friedman, G.R. and A.P. Sage, “Case studies of systems engineering and management in systems acquisition."
Systems Engineering, vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 84-97, 2004.
Jacobus, P., P. Yan, and J. Barrett, "Information management: The advanced processor build (tactical)", JOHNS
HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, vol. 23, No. 4 Jan, pp. 366-372, 2002.
Mitchell, Steven W., "Efficiently Managing Product Baseline Configurations in the Model-Based System
Development of a Combat System Product Family", INCOSE International Symposium, Rome, Italy, July 2012.
Zingarelli, M. A., S. R. Wright, R. J. Pallack, and K. C. Matto, “SWFTS - System engineering applied to submarine
combat systems,” Engineering the Total Ship, Falls Church, VA, July 2010.
Primary References
Mitchell, S. W., "Transitioning the SWFTS program combat system product family from traditional
document-centric to model-based systems engineering", Journal of Systems Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring
2014.
Rogers III, Edward B. and Steven W. Mitchell, "MBSE Delivers Significant Return on Investment in Evolutionary
Development of Complex SoS", Systems Engineering, vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 385-408, November 2021. DOI
10.1002/sys.21592
Gibson, B., S. W. Mitchell, and D. Robinson, "Bridging the gap: Modeling federated combat systems," Third
International Conference on Model Based Systems Engineering, Fairfax, VA, Sept 2010.
Mitchell, S. W., “Model-based system development for managing the evolution of a common submarine combat
system," A FCEA-GMU C4I Center Symposium on Critical Issues in C4I, 18-19 May 2010.
Mitchell, S. W., "Complex product family modeling for common submarine combat system MBSE," Third
International Conference on Model Based Systems Engineering, Fairfax, VA, Sept 2010.
Mitchell, S. W., ”Efficient management of configurations in the model-based system development of a common
submarine combat system," A FCEA-GMU C4I Center Symposium on Critical Issues in C4I, 24-25 May 2011.
Note
OMG® and SysML® are registered trademarks of Object Management Group, Inc. in the United States and/or other
countries. IBM®, Rational®, and DOORS® are registered trademarks of International Business Machines
Corporation, registered in many jurisdictions worldwide.
< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article>

Virginia Class Submarine

Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Alice Squires
This example was developed as a SE example directly for the SEBoK. It describes the Virginia Class submarine
sonar system project. In particular, it highlights the approach taken to the development of a sonar system architecture
and how this helped in the integration of commercial off the shelf products.
Description
Prior to the Virginia class submarine, sonar systems were comprised of proprietary components and interfaces.
However, in the mid-1990s, the United States government transitioned to the use of commercially developed
products - or commercial off the shelf (COTS) products - as a cost-saving measure to reduce the escalating costs
associated with proprietary-based research and development. The Virginia class submarine system design
represented a transition to COTS-based parts and initiated a global change in architectural approaches adopted by the
sonar community. The lead ship of the program, Virginia, reduced the number of historically procured parts for
nuclear submarines by 60% with the use of standardization. The Virginia class submarine sonar system architecture
has improved modularity, commonality, standardization, and reliability, maintainability and testability (RMT) over
historical sonar systems.
Architectural Approach: Standardization

Based on the new architectural approach and the success of the transition, system architecture experts developed an
initial set of architecture evaluation metrics:
• Commonality
• Physical commonality (within the system)
• Hardware (HW) commonality (e.g., the number of unique line replaceable units, fasteners, cables, and
unique standards implemented)
• Software (SW) commonality (e.g., the number of unique SW packages implemented, languages, compilers,
average SW instantiations, and unique standards implemented)
• Physical familiarity (with other systems)
• Percentage of vendors and subcontractors known
• Percentage of HW and SW technology known
• Operational commonality
• Percentage of operational functions which are automated
• Number of unique skill codes required
• Estimated operational training time (e.g., initial and refresh from previous system)
• Estimated maintenance training time (e.g., initial and refresh from previous system)
• Modularity
• Physical modularity (e.g., ease of system element or operating system upgrade)
• Functional modularity (e.g., ease of adding new functionality or upgrading existing functionality)
• Orthogonality
• Level to which functional requirements are fragmented across multiple processing elements and interfaces
• Level to which throughput requirements span across interfaces
• Level to which common specifications are identified
• Abstraction (i.e., the level to which the system architecture provides an option for information hiding)
• Interfaces
• Number of unique interfaces per system element
• Number of different networking protocols
• Explicit versus implicit interfaces
• Level to which the architecture includes implicit interfaces
• Number of cables in the system
• Standards-based openness
• Interface standards
• Ratio of the number of interface standards to the number of interfaces
• Number of vendors for products based on standards
• Number of business domains that apply/use the standard (e.g., aerospace, medical, and telecommunications)
• Standard maturity
• Hardware standards
• Ratio of the number of form factors to the number of line replaceable units (LRUs)
• Number of vendors for products based on standards
• Standard maturity
• Software standards
• Number of proprietary and unique operating systems
• Number of non-standard databases
• Number of proprietary middle-ware
• Number of non-standard languages
• Consistency orientation
• Common guidelines for implementing diagnostics and performance monitor/fault location (PM/FL)
• Common guidelines for implementing human-machine interface (HMI)
• Reliability, maintainability, and testability
• Reliability (fault tolerance)
• Critical points of fragility (e.g., system loading comprised of percent of processor, memory, and network
loading)
• Maintainability (e.g., expected mean time to repair (MTTR), maximum fault group size, whether the system
can be operational during maintenance)
• Accessibility (e.g., space restrictions, special tool requirements, special skill requirements)
• Testability
• Number of LRUs covered by built-in tests (BIT) (BIT coverage)
• Reproducibility of errors
• Logging/recording capability
• Whether the system state at time of system failure can be recreated
• Online testing (e.g., whether the system is operational during external testing and the ease of access to
external test points)
• Automated input/stimulation insertion
Other Points
The Virginia class submarine acquisition exhibited other best practices. These are discussed by Schank (2011), GAO
(2008), and General Dynamics (2002).
These best practices included stringent design trades to keep costs under control, careful consideration of technical
maturity of components, and the importance of program stability.
Summary
In summary, the work on the Virginia class submarine prompted a change in the traditional architectural approach
used in the sonar community to design submarine sonar and validated the cost savings in both research and
development (R&D) and in component costs when transitioning from proprietary interfaces to industry standard
interfaces. The identification of a list of feasible architecture evaluation metrics was an added benefit of the effort.
References
Works Cited
GAO. Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of Selected Weapon Programs Report. Washington, DC, USA: US.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). March 2009. GAO-09-326SP.
GD Electric Boat Division. The Virginia Class Submarine Program: A Case Study. Groton, CT: General Dynamics.
February 2002.
Schank, J.F. et al. Learning from Experience, Volume 2: Lessons from the U.S. Navy's Ohio, Seawolf, and Virginia
Submarine Programs. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Rand. 2011. Available at http:/ / www. rand. org/ content/ dam/
rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.2.pdf [1]
Primary References
None.
None.

References
[1] http:/ / www. rand. org/ content/ dam/ rand/ pubs/ monographs/ 2011/ RAND_MG1128. 2. pdf
1079
Information System Examples
Complex Adaptive Taxi Service Scheduler

This article is based around a London Taxi Service Case Study (Rzevski and Skobelev, 2014). The case study
focuses on the development of a Real-Time Complex Adaptive Scheduler for a London Taxi Service capable of
managing the complexity of many hundreds of taxi journeys in an unpredictable and changing environment, while
fitting into the goals and values of the Enterprise.
Background
When this project was initiated, the company, the largest and the best-known minicab (taxi) operator in London had
a fleet of more than 2,000 vehicles, each with a Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation system. The fleet
comprised a variety of vehicles, including minivans and Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), some with equipment to
match special customer requirements. Under usual circumstances, approximately 700 drivers worked concurrently,
competing with each other for customers.
The company had a modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system and a call center with over 100 operators
receiving orders concurrently. Some orders were received through the company website. A large team of skilled
dispatchers allocated vehicles to customers.
Main characteristics of the taxi service were as follows:
• More than 13,000 orders per day
• Occasionally more than 1,500 orders per hour (1 order every 2.4 seconds)
• Unpredictable order arrival times and locations
• Various clients, e.g., personal, corporate, Very Important Persons (VIPs), a variety of discounted tariffs, special
requirements suitable for the disabled, small children (child seats), transportation of pets, etc.
• Many freelance drivers who leased cars from the company and were allowed to start and finish their shifts at
times that suited them, which may have differed from day to day
• Clients in central London were guaranteed pick up times within 15 minutes of order placement
• Fundamentally, the company tried to find the best economic match of vehicle to every client. However, dynamic
exceptions to this basic requirement included:
• Matching drivers going to and from home with passengers travelling in the same direction (to reduce drivers’
idle runs); and
• Giving priority to drivers with less work during a particular day (to increase drivers’ satisfaction with working
conditions)
No pre-planned taxi schedule was viable because any of the following unpredictable “Disruptive Events” occurred
every 2 to 10 seconds:
• Order arrival, change, or cancellation
• Changes in driver profile, status, or location
• Client no-show
• Vehicle failure
• Delays due to traffic congestion, or queues at airports, railway stations, etc.
Purpose
Rescheduling up to 700 independent entities travelling in London under unpredictable conditions that change every
few seconds represented an exceedingly complex task, which was not feasible to accomplish using any known
mathematical method.
Manual scheduling, as practiced, could not handle the frequent disruptive events. Many perturbations, such as
unexpected delays, had to be ignored by the human dispatchers.
Therefore, the project’s objective was to provide effective, real-time, automated assistance to accommodate the
disruptions that drove the scheduling. Thus, the project purpose became the development of a complex adaptive
software system capable of managing the taxi operation complexity described above with the aim of substantially
improving: (1) operational profitability; (2) customer service quality; and (3) driver working conditions.
The planned transformation was from a manual to semi-automated managed taxi operation that facilitated optional
human dispatcher interactions with a complex adaptive system scheduler. A thorough analysis of contemporary
practices showed that such a transformation has never been achieved before. To the best of the project team’s
knowledge, there were no real-time schedulers of taxi operations in existence anywhere in the world.
Challenges
The team undertaking the development of a new real-time scheduler for this client had vast experience of designing
and implementing complex adaptive software, and therefore no particular challenges were anticipated. The
multi-agent technology, which underpinned the system, was well understood by the team, and a methodology for
managing complexity (Rzevski and Skobelev, 2014) of the task was in place.
Overview
The complexity of the taxi service ruled out all conventional systems engineering practices. The real-time adaptive
scheduler for the client’s taxi service was developed using multi-agent software technology. STOPPED HERE The
scheduler design consisted of the following major components (Rzevski and Skobelev, 2014):
1. A Knowledge Base containing domain-useful information relevant to the client’s taxi service
2. A Multi-agent Virtual World which models the Real World of the taxi service and is capable of managing its
complexity
3. Communication channels between the Virtual and Real Worlds which enable the Virtual World management of
the Real World with or without human intervention.
The system was designed to behave as follows. In reaction to every disruptive event, Order Agents, assigned to every
received order, and Driver Agents, assigned to every working driver, negotiate the most suitable Order-Driver match
through the exchange of messages. Before starting negotiations, these software agents consult the Knowledge Base
for the current negotiation rules. Once the best possible match (under prevailing circumstances) is agreed upon, the
result is communicated to Drivers, who are free to accept or reject the task (Glaschenko et al. 2009). This process is
depicted simply in the figure below.
After a successful prototype implementation, a basic version of the complex adaptive scheduler was developed as
described below.
Figure 1. Essence of the event driven,

real-time, adaptive scheduling of a taxi service.
This material is reproduced with permission of G.
Rzevski and publisher WitPress. All other rights
Knowledge Base
The Knowledge Base consisted of: (1) Ontology, containing conceptual knowledge as a semantic network; and (2)
Values, in standard databases.
The basic Ontology contained two Object Classes: Order and Driver. Order attributes were:
• Location of pick-up and drop-off
• Pick-up( urgent or booked in advance for a certain date and time)
• Type of service (standard car, minivan, VIP, etc.)
• Importance of service (a number from 0 to 100 depending upon the client)
• Special requirements (pet, child chair, etc.)
Driver attributes were:
• Type of vehicle
• Capability to complete special jobs
• Driver experience (novice or experienced)
• Domicile of driver
• Current vehicle location (GPS coordinates)
• Driver status (unavailable, break, working, free, will be free in 5/10 minutes, home transit)
Factual data on Object Instances (Individual Orders and Drivers/Vehicles statuses) were stored in client’s databases,
including Scenes (i.e., instantaneous models of the taxi service yielding every vehicle location and driver
availability).
Virtual World
In the basic version of the scheduler, the allocation of taxis to customers was done by the negotiation between Order
Agents, assigned to customers, and Driver Agents, assigned to taxi drivers. Order Agents were active: they compiled
lists of available vehicles and initiated negotiations with Driver Agents. In this first version of the system, Driver
Agents were designed to be only reactive: they only replied to requests from Order Agents and implemented the
option selected by an Order Agent.
In the extended version, hereafter described, Order Agents and Driver Agents competed with each other or
co-operated, depending on what was best for the whole enterprise. In addition to Order and Driver Agents, this
version used some new types of agents, namely: External Events Agents, Regional Loading Agents, and Orders
Allocation Agents.
Agents were designed to use flexible decision-making criteria instead of direct priorities, which is valuable when
there is a need to deal with different categories of clients. For example, if a VIP order arrived and there was only one
driver that fully corresponded to the specified requirements and if that driver was already assigned to another job, the
system would nevertheless allocate the VIP order to this driver and initiate re-scheduling of the previously agreed
matches, if required.
The system first attempted to maximize company profit. Then, other criteria that are important for the business were
considered, such as the service level and driver working conditions. For example, when choosing from two
approximately equal options the system allocated the order to the driver who had not received orders for a longer
time, thus ensuring relatively fair distribution of orders.
This virtual agent-based scheduling system was designed to work effectively with human dispatchers. In a situation
where one dispatcher takes a new order and schedules a vehicle to come from north to south to pick up a client, and
another dispatcher independently schedules another vehicle to go from south to north for another order, the virtual
agents can spot this schedule anomaly and recommend dispatchers change their decisions to be more effective.
To enable improved performance, the taxi allocation system functioned in short cycles rather than as an immediate
reaction to every event. Between the cycles, the system collected the events and placed them in a queue. During each
cycle, the events from the queue were processed one by one and appropriate agents, in turn, were given control by a
designated human system dispatcher. Each event thus initiated a chain of negotiations among virtual agents. When
all events were processed and the system dispatcher was satisfied that the best possible schedule was produced for
that cycle, the schedule perturbation was implemented in the real world, and the system fell asleep (was idled) until a
new event arrived causing the initiation of the next cycle.
To decrease the dimensions of the decision space, a pre-matching mechanism was used, which determined the
suitability of Order-Driver matching. This mechanism cuts off unpromising options.
The Order-Driver pairs were evaluated before the final decision was made. An evaluation mark was given to each
option and good options were remembered so that the evaluations did not need to be repeated later. The evaluation
mark was determined using a multi-criteria model and calculated as a sum of all criteria values multiplied by their
(variable) weights.
The following criteria were used for option evaluation: distance to the order, predicted delay of the pick-up, if any,
preferences of the driver, driver experience, distance of the driver to overloaded area (to utilize drivers from outlying
districts), service level conformity, importance and priority of the order, driver’s place in a queue (if he is waiting at
an airport), driver’s home address (if he is looking for an order to or from home).
Scheduling workflow included the following steps:
1. New order arrives and joins the event queue
2. Possibility of order scheduling is checked
3. A software agent is assigned to the order
4. All drivers that can complete this order are included in pre-matching
5. Evaluation of all Order-Driver pairs is done according to agreed criteria
6. The Order Agent requests order completion costs from selected Driver Agents. This cost includes the cost of
transferring the order from the previously allocated driver, if any
7. The Driver Agent receives the information on the reallocation costs by sending a request to its current Order
Agent
8. If the revised decision is better than the previous one, it is applied
9. Step 6 continues for all candidate drivers, for whom the initial evaluation (without transfers) was better than the
current evaluation
10. If no further changes occur during the cycle, the event processing is considered finished
In order to achieve the best possible solution, the system continued to search for improvements in previously agreed
Order-Driver matches until the last moment when it had to issue the instruction to a driver to fulfil an order
(commitment time). During this time interval, the Driver was considered to be available for new allocations but only
if the new allocation improved specified performance indicators.

When required, Driver Agents attempted “to come to an agreement” with each other about proposed re-allocation of
orders. Occasionally, compensation was offered to the Driver Agent who lost a good client in order to improve
overall value of the business, and Driver Agent satisfaction, in particular. Very often the re-scheduling of allocated
resources caused a wave of negotiations aimed at the resolution of conflicts between new and old orders. The length
of the re-scheduling chain was limited only by the time required for a taxi to reach a customer in a busy city such as
London, which normally was sufficient for several changes of the schedule.
To summarize, the system built a schedule and perpetually reviewed it, attempting to improve key performance
indicators as long as the time for essential re-scheduling was still available.
The Commitment Time was dynamically calculated for each order, taking into account the priority and service type
of the order and some other parameters. The introduction of the dynamic Commitment Time resulted in the increase
of the fleet effectiveness by reducing the average task completion time per driver.
An option was introduced for the system to distribute the fleet according to the order-flow forecasts. Having
information about the current order-flow and distribution of orders in the past, the expected order-flow was
extrapolated, enabling the system to generate short-term (30 minutes) forecasts, which were normally reasonably
correct. Based on the forecast, the system sent text messages to unoccupied drivers with recommendations to stay in,
or move to, the region where an increased order flow was expected. This feature enabled an improved distribution of
the fleet, reducing response times and idle miles and increasing the number of pick-ups.
In cases when forecasts envisaged a probability of a VIP order arrival at a significant distance from the point where
drivers were advised to congregate, the system would recommend that a proximate driver to move closer to the likely
order point, offering him/her a guaranteed next order in exchange for compliance. This was an important feature
because there were usually enough proximate drivers to complete available orders in areas that were not overloaded,
and productivity of work in overloaded areas determined the actual fleet effectiveness. The system was also designed
with an option to temporarily amend criteria for the allocation of orders to drivers (for example, to extend the area
where drivers are allowed to search for orders) to enable drivers to reach critical locations without being intercepted
by less important orders from nearby locations.
The forecasting functionality was supported by an agent-based dynamic data mining system, which was, in fact,
another complex adaptive system cooperating with the complex adaptive scheduler.
In later versions the system was designed to detect and identify drivers that cheat, i.e., deliberately providing the
scheduler with false information to gain personal advantages. Recorded cases include attempts to:
• Reduce their ultimate waiting time by reporting that they were already waiting in an airport queue when, in
reality, they may still have been tens of miles from the airport
• Get an earlier next order by indicating “free in 10 minutes” at or near the beginning of a long assignment
• Receive orders in their home direction by indicating “going home” several times during a day.
To reduce cheating, Driver Agents were designed to monitor drivers’ schedules and ignore their messages, when
judged inappropriate.
The final version of the complex adaptive taxi service scheduler negotiated only with agents that were affected by a
disruptive event and then modified only affected parts of the schedule. This capability was a key feature that
improved overall effectiveness.
Connecting Virtual and Real Worlds

The Virtual World, which is a model of reality and resides in the scheduler, is connected with the Real World of
customers, dispatchers, and drivers, as follows.
As customers ring the call center or visit the website to place, modify or cancel an order, dispatchers enter the
pertinent information into the system. Drivers communicate with the system using GPS, mobile phones, or
specialized handheld devices, conveying information on their location, direction of travel, availability, etc., and, in
turn, receive instructions to pick up customers.
Lessons Learned
The system began its operation and maintenance phase in March 2008, only 6 months from the beginning of the
project.
Results were extremely good: 98.5 % of all orders were allocated automatically without dispatcher’s assistance; the
number of lost orders was reduced by up to 2 %; the number of vehicles idle runs was reduced by 22.5 %. Each
vehicle was able to complete two additional orders per week spending the same time and consuming the same
amount of fuel, which increased the yield of each vehicle by 5 – 7 %.
Time required to repay investments was 2 months from the beginning of the operation and maintenance phase.
During the first month of operation the fleet utilization effectiveness was increased by 5 – 7 %, which represents
potential additional revenue of up to 5 million dollars per year. Such realized additional income has benefited both
the company and the taxi drivers. According to available statistics, driver wages have increased by 9 % since 2008,
and there is a possibility for an overall fleet growth.
Delayed pick-ups were reduced by a factor of 3, which considerably improved customer service. Urgent order
average response time (from booking until taxi pick-up arrival) decreased to 9 minutes, which is the best time among
all taxi services in London. For high priority orders, the response time is 5 – 7 minutes or less. Response time
reductions are especially noticeable in overloaded areas.
Implementation of “on the way home” orders, an improved allocation mechanism, when compared with a previous
system, gives 3 – 4 thousand miles reduction in daily fleet run, greatly benefiting both drivers and the city’s ecology.
Further developments targeting business effectiveness improvements may include an analysis of vehicle movements
to determine actual vehicle velocities that could improve courier service by increasing the number of orders per
courier.
References
Works Cited
Rzevski, G., Skobelev, P. 2014. Managing Complexity. WIT Press, New Forest, Boston. ISBN 978-1-84564-936-4.
Glaschenko, A., Ivaschenko, A., Rzevski, G., Skobelev, P. “Multi-Agent Real Time Scheduling System for Taxi
Companies”. Proc. of 8th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009), Decker,
Sichman, Sierra, and Castelfranchi (eds.), May, 10–15, 2009, Budapest, Hungary. ISBN: 978-0-9817381-6-1, pp.
29-35.
Primary References
Rzevski, G., Skobelev, P. 2014. Managing Complexity. WIT Press, New Forest, Boston. ISBN 978-1-84564-936-4.
None.

Successful Business Transformation within a

Russian Information Technology Company
Lead Author: Brian White
This article describes a successful business transformation of an information technology enterprise. The topic may be
of particular interest, especially because this transformation was accomplished by a Russian company during the
republic’s fast-growing economic recovery.
For addition information, refer to the closely related topics of Enabling Businesses and Enterprises and Enterprise
Background
In 2001, the top management of the IBS company [1] in Moscow initiated a fundamental transformation to change
the company’s strategy and business model. The company was one of the biggest Russian information technology
(IT) systems integrators at that time, with about 900 employees. Annual revenues of about $80M were mainly
generated by information technology (IT) infrastructure projects (complex computing systems, multi-service
networks, etc.) and hardware and software distribution. The transformation of the company to form new capabilities
in IT services and the associated consulting area is the main topic in the case study.
During the transformation period (from 2001 to the present) IBS was represented as a set of autonomous business
units (BUs), called constituent systems, which are virtual, independent businesses with the following characteristics:
• Profit and loss reporting was required for each BU according to management accounting procedures
• BU management established and independently conducted human resources, technology, and product policy
• A centralized back-office was organized to provide supporting functions for each BU. Thus, BUs do not have
back-offices; they rely on and “pay” a corporate governing center (CGC) for these services.
A thorough enterprise system (ES) transformation was executed as a set of activities: mission analysis and
capabilities decomposition, business architecting, planning of the project program, and implementation of the new
business model.
Before and after transformation IBS was an exemplar directed system of systems (sos): the constituent BUs are
autonomous but their operations are supervised by CGC. At the same time IBS also has significant features of an
acknowledged SoS: the constituent BUs retain their independent development and sustainment approaches, and
changes in the company are based on collaboration between the CGC and each constituent; even operations of BUs
are not controlled but only supervised/governed by the CGC through “soft” recommendations and coordination.
IBS was a quite mature ES before the transformation, and it was thoroughly upgraded to form new capabilities of the
whole system as well as of the constituents.
Purpose
In 2000-2001 IBS management forecasted considerable growth of the Russian IT services and consulting market
based on the fast growing Russian economy, which was rapidly recovering from the national financial crisis of 1998.
The largest corporations started overseas expansion and borrowed from international markets to finance this growth.
IBS predicted corresponding growth in the complexity of business processes and their associated software and
hardware systems, all of which should require more consulting and IT services.
Based on this forecast, management established a strategy goal to double the share of IT services and consulting
from 25% to 50% over one year; further growth in this business was planned as a long-term trend.
The consulting and IT services business is very complex technologically and organizationally and dramatically
differs from IBS’s former infrastructure focus. Thus, a fundamental transformation was required, and it was executed
during 2002.
Initially detected problems appeared as expenditures exceeding resources, slow delivery of the projects and
reworking. Later, as it was expected, new problems appeared, for example, disinterest of BUs’ managers in
developing new technologies or raising qualified employees’ motivation. All those problems were solved during
transformation and during further development.
The first step of the transformation included strategic analysis and mission-to-capabilities decomposition. Five major
capability groups to be focused on were defined. The groups and exemplar capabilities for each group are
represented at Figure 1.
Figure 1. Mission and capabilities desired. (Belov 2014) Reprinted with permission of Taylor and Francis, New York, NY. All other rights are
Challenges
All main challenges were caused by knowledge/information deficit described by three factors listed as a, b, and c
below.
a. The lack of experience in enterprise transformation (and capability-based approaches, even the lack of any
textbooks or guides in those areas) was the major challenge which IBS management faced. The task to be solved did
not devolve to organizational changes (which was a well-developed and described area), but was appropriately
allocated to enterprise system or system of systems (SoS) engineering. In spite of the lack of experience, it was
decided to prepare and execute the transformation based on the company’s employees without involving external
consultants. The following arguments supported the decision.
• The task to be solved was not typical, so there weren’t widely used and well tested algorithms or methods, and
there weren’t a lot of consultants experienced in exactly what was needed. So only consultants with general
experience (strategy consulting, organizational management) might be hired.
• The Russian consulting industry in 2001-2002 was not well developed, so only foreign professionals were
available. But foreign consultants would have needed to study Russian specifics; such study would have unduly
lengthened the duration and increased the cost of the transformation.
• A joint transformation team would have to be formed, and IBS employees would have to be involved:
management would have to be interviewed and be involved in decision making. In any case, all employees would
have to participate in change implementations.
• External consultants are not stakeholders; so their level of interest in helping to achieve success might not be very
high, and their output also might not be outstanding.
• Unwillingness to open professional secrets and other intellectual property issues to direct competitors were other
factors that prevented hiring of external consultants.
Thus, the final decision was to execute the transformation without involvement of external consulting resources. A
special BoU responsible for business processes development was established and an agile program management
approach was applied to handle challenges and to pursue opportunities as well as to mitigate risks.
b. A very high complexity IBS as an enterprise system or SoS. Management recognized that the company and its
environment was very complex, with many different agents, many constituents, and countless relationships; and that
an enterprise system or SoS might become even more complex after transformation. This complexification happened
as the company became an “extended enterprise,” the governing hierarchies weakened, and the demand for more
sophisticated relationships increased.
c. The risk of mistaken forecast of IT market development. The expected growth of the consulting and services
market might have not happened. In this case the transformation would have been senseless. This challenge
generated additional emotional stress for management.

The SE task of the transformation was established in the form: to develop required capabilities for an enterprise
system or SoS – IBS company. The SE process might be represented by the following specific IBS interpretation of
the vee (v) model (“V model”) with Stages 1 through 7 (Figure 2).
Initially (Stage 1) the mission was translated to capabilities (Figure 1); “understanding the constituent systems (BUs)
and their relationships” was executed. The transformation team found that capabilities might not be directly
translated to any business-agent. Neither BUs (they serve as resource pools), nor projects (being temporal elements),
nor employees (each of them have a finite set of skills, experience, responsibilities, etc.) might realize necessary
capabilities.
Realizing this (Stage 2) transformation team defined several key areas (Figure 2) of company’s operations or
activities which were supposed to be changed to form new capabilities. Appropriate artifacts (procedures, guides,
documents, software systems) to support new capabilities were developed and implemented for each of the areas;
these new assets formed exactly the corporate infrastructure of new business model.
Figure 2. “V model” of the systems engineering process of the transformation. (Belov 2014) Reprinted with permission of Taylor and
Francis, New York, NY. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner..
For each new and legacy system (Stage 3), a set of conceptual design documents was developed, describing
approaches, polices, processes, and procedures. The entire set of documents formed the business architecture
description of the company. The description connected all key areas and defined a target operation model of the
company after transformation. This architecture represented multiple views of the IBS company, and thus aptly
reflected its enterprise system or SoS nature.
Somewhat in contrast with the conventional linear systems engineering approach advocated by the V model, Stages
4-6 were conducted in parallel to save time and resources. The company’s performance (Stage 7) should be
monitored based on indicators’ measurements, and improvements should be developed and implemented (arrows
from Stage 3 to Stage 7). Such iterations have been executed in practice not only during transformation but also later,
when procedures, guides and the whole systems were updated.
Integration and interoperability of the new systems required a thorough integration of parallel development jobs. So
joint workgroups were formed of the employees at the level of low officers; and CGC played the role of integrated
workgroup at the management level. Actually, multi-level integrated workgroups were formed.
The major complexity and risks derived from the challenges described above.
The transformation team developed and used an approach which is very similar to the agile development approach to
address those risks. The following principles were used to manage the portfolio of projects in case of uncertainty and
deficit of knowledge.
• Form solutions as fast as possible (but not necessarily with pure quality) to test them in practice faster.
• Recognizing failures are unavoidable, perceive them readily and react rationally.
• In case of failure, analyze the situation and find a new solution, generate changes, and update the plan.
• Work in parallel, verifying and coordinating intermediate results.
• The schedule might be corrected and updated but should not be jeopardized by improper execution.
• Formulate and test the most critical and most questionable solutions at first.
• Start from pilot area and then expand to embrace the entire scope.
• Use high quality monitoring and a “manual control mode” for piloting and testing developing solutions but not
additional aspects to limit waste of the resources.
Following those principles, including a very strong discipline of execution, a high level of the sponsorship and
all-employee involvement enabled the transformation to be completed on time without hiring consultants while
keeping and developing on-going business.
Lessons Learned
IBS’s accomplishment of the mission was the major result of ES transformation. Shareholders and management
recognized that new capabilities had been formed, that the company could deliver consulting and services, sell and
execute complex projects, manage consulting resources effectively, measure its performance, and plan and forecast
financial results. Created capabilities are emergent in some sense because they are not directly related to concrete
constituents (BUs, or employee, or projects) but are realized by means of integrated end-to-end processes and
functions, which are executed in the projects by employees.
The systems organization did not dramatically change during transformation; “visible structure” was not practically
changed: no new types of business-agents appeared, existing types did not change much. Those factors did not create
new capabilities. Target capabilities were formed as the result of development and implementation of, it would seem,
auxiliary and supporting tools – new capabilities support systems. New capabilities were formed mainly by the
changes in the intangible areas of governing media, corporate culture, relations, and personnel competences; as well
as by the creation of new capabilities support systems; without considerable changes in main company’s
business-agents. (Refer to Figure 3.)
The main challenges which management faced (the lack of experience and the ambiguity of market growth forecast)
made the uncertainty factor the critical one in the transformation.
What Worked and Why?

An agile program management in general demonstrated its efficiency and applicability to “soft and uncertain” tasks,
especially in triggering a pre-established process for dealing with unexpected events; the main aspects of the
approach are:
• Senior and credible sponsors
• Multi-level integrated project team(s)
• Open information exchange
• Partnership and collaboration
• Proactive and motivated parties and constituents
• Creative and innovative way of development
Figure 3. The results of transformation. (Belov 2014) Reprinted with permission of Taylor and Francis, New
York, NY. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
• Prioritizing and focusing on the most ambiguous elements of systems design

• Piloting and subsequent roll-out in realistic environments
• Strong project scope control
• Strong project execution control – time schedule and resources control.
What Did Not Work and Why?

Perhaps corporate knowledge base development was the only more or less serious task which was not solved in
transformation. The company’s management understood the usefulness of knowledge accumulation and further
alienation from the carriers in utilizing their business knowledge, so the goal of developing their own knowledge
base was established. Special database and software systems were developed with appropriate guides, reports and
data collection forms; but formal regulation to fill in engineering knowledge accumulation templates did not work.
However, this issue later progressed quite naturally and simply: common folders were established to store project
data in free formats. Such folders served to accumulate knowledge but in flat, unstructured form.
Best Practices and Replication Prospects

The following methods and approaches were proven as efficient and convenient in transformation.
1. Capability-based development approach and capability-based architecting might be recommended to be utilized
in creation and transformation of an enterprise system or SoS. These focused all efforts on the required
capabilities and involved very important relations from mission to capabilities and to functions in the systems
engineering process.
2. An agile program management might be used to solve a wide range of fuzzy and ambiguous problems of
different scale in the areas of SE, ES engineering, and SoS engineering where there is much uncertainty and lack
of expertise and proven methods or algorithms to solve them. The combination of “soft” and very creative designs
with strong planning and progress control is the crucial foundation of this approach.
3. Key area definition and development appropriate to generating new capabilities for support systems (core
consulting and services technologies, project implementation systems, systems for business unit growth,
management accounting systems, motivation systems). Precisely defining these areas and developing integrated
systems in these areas might be considered as quite common for application to a broader group of ESs.
References
Works Cited
Belov, M. 2014. "IBS Group, Eastern European ITS Services – Capability-Based Development for Business
Transformation," in Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering, A.
Gorod et al., (Eds.). Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Primary References
Belov, M. 2014. “IBS Group, Eastern European ITS Services – Capability-Based Development for Business
Transformation.” Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering. Gorod,
A., B. E. White, V. Ireland, S. J. Gandhi, and B. J. Sauser, (Eds.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Group. Scheduled for publication in July 2014. http:/ / www. taylorandfrancis. com/ books/ details/ 9781466502390/
.
None

References
[1] http:/ / www. en. ibs. ru/
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Virtual

Case File System
Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, John Brackett
This case study presents systems and software engineering issues encountered in the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) Virtual Case File (VCF) project in the period between 2000-2005. VCF development was abandoned in 2005
after over $170 million had been spent.
Domain Background
The FBI is an organization within the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) consisting of 23 divisions, including
counterintelligence, criminal investigation, and cybercrime. The Bureau's 12,400 agents investigate everything from
counter-terrorism leads to kidnappings. They interview witnesses, develop informants, conduct surveillance, hunt for
clues, and collaborate with local law enforcement to find and arrest criminals. Agents document every step and
methodically build case files. They spend a tremendous amount of time processing paperwork. This system of forms
and approvals stretches back to the 1920s when forms for all of the bureau's investigative reports were standardized.
In 2000, the Bureau had hundreds of standardized paper forms and an obsolete information technology (IT) systems.
The FBI’s 13,000 computers could not run modern software. Most of the agency offices were connected to the FBI
Intranet with links operating at about the speed of a 56 kilobits-per-second modem. Agents could not e-mail U.S.
Attorneys, federal agencies, local law enforcement, or each other; instead, they typically sent case-related
information by fax. The agency’s problems in 2000 were summarized in the 9/11 Commission Report: "The FBI's
information systems were woefully inadequate. The FBI lacked the ability to know what it knew; there was no
effective mechanism for capturing or sharing its institutional knowledge" (National Commission on Terrorist Acts
upon the United States 2004).
In September 2000, Congress approved $380 million over three years for what was then called the FBI Information
Technology Upgrade Program. Eventually divided into three parts, the program became known as the Trilogy
Information Technology Modernization Program. The first part would provide all 56 FBI field offices with updated
computer terminals, as well as new hardware such as scanners, printers, and servers. The second part would
re-implement the FBI Intranet to provide secure local area and wide area networks, allowing agents to share
information with their supervisors and each other. The third part was intended to replace the FBI's investigative
software applications, including the obsolete Automated Case Support (ACS) system.
In June 2001, the FBI awarded a contract to develop the investigative software applications of Trilogy to Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) over a three year period. The purpose of the software to be developed
was to:
• provide the capability to find information in FBI databases without having prior knowledge of its location, and to
search all FBI databases with a single query through the use of search engines;
• Web-enable the existing investigative applications;
• improve capabilities to share information inside and outside the FBI;
• provide access to authorized information from both internal and external databases; and
• allow the evaluation of cases and crime patterns through the use of commercial and FBI-enhanced analytical and
case management tools.
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the inability of FBI agents to share the most basic information about al
Qaeda's U.S. activities was front-page news. Within days, the FBI's obsolete technology infrastructure was being
discussed in Congress and the FBI was under intense pressure to improve its information sharing capabilities. On
September 4, 2001, Robert S. Mueller III became FBI director, and, in the face of intense public and congressional
pressure, Mueller accelerated the Trilogy program. The planned three-year period to develop the investigative
software was considered politically unacceptable. In January 2002, the FBI requested an additional $70 million to
accelerate Trilogy; Congress went further, approving $78 million.
Providing web-enablement of the existing but antiquated and limited ACS system would not provide the
investigative case management capabilities required to meet the FBI’s post-September 11 mission. In December
2001, the FBI asked SAIC to stop building a Web-based front end for the old programs. Instead, SAIC was asked to
devise a new case management system, the Virtual Case File (VCF), to replace ACS. The VCF would contain a
major new application, database, and graphical user interface. In order to make both criminal and terrorist
investigation information readily accessible throughout the FBI, major changes to the standardized FBI processes
would be required. This case study focuses on the VCF component of the Trilogy program.
Case Study Background

The most complete description of the development of the VCF is the report by the DoJ Office of the Inspector
General (OIG). The OIG reports to the Attorney General and is independent of the FBI organizations responsible for
the Trilogy program. The introduction to the report states, “We conducted this audit to assess the FBI’s progress in
meeting cost, schedule, technical, and performance targets for the three components of Trilogy. We also examined
the extent to which Trilogy will meet the FBI’s current and longer-term IT needs” (OIG 2004).
An IEEE Spectrum article complements the OIG audit report by detailing the development of the VCF requirements,
the contractor’s activities, and the project management failures by both the FBI and the contractor. The contractor’s
viewpoint is presented in testimony given before a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee.
These materials, in total, provide a comprehensive view of the VCF program and the reasons for its failure.
Case Study Description

In the political environment following the 9/11 attacks, funding for the VCF project was never a problem. By early
2002, SAIC and the FBI committed to creating an entirely new case management system in 22 months. High-level
funding enabled the project to continue gaining momentum in spite of the problems it encountered. The scheduling
for the VCF project focused on what was desired, not what was possible. Trilogy’s scope grew by approximately
80% from the initial project baseline (Moore 2010).
The reasons for the failure of the VCF project are associated with the non-use or misuse of numerous system
engineering practices, especially within stakeholder requirements, system requirements, planning, assessment and
control, and risk management. Given the political pressures following the 9/11 attacks, the schedule was accelerated
to the point that it was nearly impossible for the developers to follow an appropriate systems engineering process.
The FBI cycled through five people in the role of Chief Information Officer in four years and most decisions were
made by committees. In order to compress the schedule, the FBI even proposed replacing the ACS with the VCF
over a weekend using an IT procedure called a “flash cut-over.” In this proposed implementation, the ACS system
would be taken offline and entirely replaced by VCF. Once the cut-over happened, there would be no mechanism to
return to ACS, even if the VCF did not work properly.
SAIC worked under a cost-plus-award-fee contract for the VCF as the scope of the project was undefined in early
2002 when work began. Given the schedule pressures, the FBI believed that there was no time to develop formal
requirements (glossary), validate them with the various FBI user communities, and then estimate the cost and time
required to develop the VCF. The SAIC contract did not require specific completion milestones and the cost-plus
contract allowed the scope to increase. VCF was a case of not having the requirements sufficiently defined in terms
of completeness and correctness. The continuous redefinition of requirements had a cascading effect on what had
already been designed and produced. Once there was demonstrable software, change requests started
arriving—roughly 400 from December 2002 to December 2003.

The new FBI Intranet was specified during 2001, before the start of the VCF project and with little understanding of
the network traffic that would result from information sharing. By early 2003, the FBI began to realize how taxing
the network traffic would be once all 22,000 users came online. The requirements for the FBI Intranet were modified
based on the best guesses for the bandwidth that would be required when the VCF was fully operational. By early
2004, the new FBI Intranet was in operation, although the VCF software was far from complete.
In reaction to the time pressure, SAIC broke its VCF development group into eight teams working in parallel on
different functional elements of the program. However, this posed many integration challenges and the eight threads
would later prove too difficult for SAIC to combine into a single system. By the time VCF was canceled, SAIC had
developed over 700,000 lines of software based upon an incomplete set of requirements that were documented in an
800-page volume.
Summary
The OIG summarizes its conclusions as:
Various reasons account for the delays and associated cost increases in the Trilogy project, including:
• poorly defined and slowly evolving design requirements,
• contracting weaknesses,
• IT investment management weaknesses,
• lack of an Enterprise Architecture,
• lack of management continuity and oversight,
• unrealistic scheduling of tasks,
• lack of adequate project integration, and
• inadequate resolution of issues raised in our previous reports on Trilogy. . . .
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an Enterprise Architecture is a set of
descriptive models such as diagrams and tables that define, in business and technology terms, how an
organization operates today, how it intends to operate in the future, and how it intends to invest in
technology to transition from today's operational environment to tomorrow's. . . .
As of early 2005 the FBI’s operations remain significantly hampered due to the poor functionality and
lack of information-sharing capabilities of its current IT systems. . . . (OIG 2005)
In May 2005, FBI director Mueller announced Sentinel, a four-phase, four-year project intended to fulfill the
purpose of VCF and provide the Bureau with a web-based case and records management system. During the
previous five years, commercial case management software had become available; as a result, Sentinel is
intended to utilize commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software. A report by the OIG in late 2009 describes
Sentinel and its status at that time. Sentinel was put online for all employees on July 1, 2012, and it ended up
at $451 million and 2 1/2 years overdue (Yost 2012).
References
Works Cited
Moore, S. 2010. "The Failure of the FBI's Virtual Case File Project." Strategic PPM: Project and Portfolio
Management, last modified April 5, accessed on September 11, 2011. Available at http:/ / strategicppm. wordpress.
com/2010/04/05/the-fbis-virtual-case-file-project-and-project-failure.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report
of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York, NY, USA: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Office of the Inspector General. 2005. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Management of the Trilogy Information
Technology Project. Washington, DC, USA: United States Department of Justice. Audit Report 05-07. February
2005. Accessed on September 11, 2011. Available at http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0507.
Office of the Inspector General. 2009. Sentinel Audit V: Status of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Case
Management System. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Justice. Audit Report 10-03. November 2009.
Accessed on September 11, 2011. Available at http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a1003_redacted.pdf.
Yost, P. 2012. "'Sentinel', New FBI Computer System, Finally Tracking Cases -- Years Late and Millions Over
Budget." Washington, DC, USA. Accessed on August 6, 2012. Available at http:/ / www. huffingtonpost. com/
2012/07/31/sentinel-fbi_n_1725958.html.
Primary References
None.
Goldstein, H. 2005. "Who Killed the Virtual Case File?" IEEE Spectrum. September. Accessed at September 11,
2011. Available at http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/who-killed-the-virtual-case-file.
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, U.S. Senate Committee on
Appropriations, February 3, 2005 (statement of Arnold Punaro, Executive Vice President, Science Applications
International Corporation).

1096
Management System Examples
Project Management for a Complex Adaptive

Operating System
This article is based on the Complex Adaptive Operating System: Creating Methods for Complex Project
Management case study (Findlay and Straus, 2015). The case study focuses on creating tools and methods that
project managers can use in managing complex adaptive systems projects.
Background
The International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) is a non-profit organization that was created to
address “the international community’s ability to successfully deliver very complex projects and manage complexity
across all industry and government sectors” (ICCPM, 2012).
In an ongoing effort to help member organizations successfully undertake major complex projects, ICCPM
conducted a bi-annual series of international round-tables. The purpose of the round-tables was to better understand
what contributes to the success of complex projects and to identify and develop new and improved tools and
approaches. The round-tables were facilitated using a computer-assisted collaborative meeting process that leverages
the features of complex adaptive systems—described below—to help people with diverse viewpoints and experience
create new collective understanding and plans for action.
Complex major projects are known for being unsuccessful in on-time and on-budget completion. A survey (IBM,
2008) of 1,500 change managers found that only 40% of projects finished on time and on budget. Barriers to success
were the inability to change attitudes or mindsets (58%), dysfunctional culture (40%), lack of senior management
support (32%), and underestimating the complexity of a project (35%).
However, several new systemic approaches show considerable promise as a way to think about and manage projects.
Six frameworks help inform these approaches: systems thinking, the features of complex adaptive systems (CASs),
complexity theory, the Complexity Model of Change (Findlay and Straus, 2011), polarity thinking as a way of
thinking about and leveraging wicked problems, cognitive complexity, and adult development theory.
Systems thinking recognizes whole systems and the interdependencies of their parts. A system may be defined as “a
set of things, organisms, and people that, as a result of their interconnection, produce their own patterns of behavior
over time” (Meadows, 2008, p. 2). A system cannot be understood by focusing on its parts alone (Wheatley, 1999).
To successfully address and influence a system, such as a complex project, one must understand the whole and how
its parts interact.
Some project managers continue to think of a project as a “machine” that operates according to linear or algorithm
rules. This persistent and largely unhelpful meme is now being displaced by a new and more robust model, which
regards projects as complex adaptive systems (CASs). Unlike strictly mechanical systems, CASs are self-organizing,
learn from experience, are emergent, and from time to time undergo large scale phase transitions to new and higher
states of the system. This view of large-scale projects—which are heavily influenced by human interaction—is
proving to be much more accurate and allows project managers to leverage techniques for exerting influence in
environments that have previously presented intractable problems .
Leaders of complex projects would also be wise to consider three fundamental theorems of complexity theory, which
apply to CASs and which are critical to project success. These are a robust model of the system, requisite variety and
adopting solutions which act at an appropriate scale.
• The robust model axiom considers that “no one can effectively influence a system until they have a thorough
understanding of its scope and the connections and interdependencies” (Conant and Ashby, 1970).
• The law of requisite variety contends that “complexity can only be dealt with by equal or greater complexity”
(Ashby, 1956, p. 2). In other words, in order to deal effectively with the diversity of problems presented by a
complex project, one must have a repertoire of responses which is (at least) as nuanced as the problems
themselves (Requisite Variety, 2015).
• The scale condition requires that those who wish to exercise leverage over a system must recognize that “highly
complex situations can best be addressed by greater degrees of freedom at the local scale so that innovation and
adaptability are maximized” (Bar-Yam, 2004).
A third framework, the Complexity Model of Change, is a model of socio-technological change, comprising a series
of growth and decay curves or waves, which helps project managers better understand how to influence systems and
design new ones, so the roles, methods, rules of interaction or engagement, technologies, and relationships between
people are better aligned with each other and the desired outcome. The overlapping waves represent large-scale eras,
for example, the Industrial Age and the Information Age, which have at their core a metaphor, for example, the
machine and the computer. The current wave, the Knowledge Age, is based on a network metaphor. The wave we
are now entering is the Wisdom Age, which began in 2010. Its core metaphor is the complex adaptive system and the
main thrust of this period is the wise application of knowledge.
Another area that project managers may now address differently is that of wicked problems or paradoxes: problems
that are ill-defined and recurrent, and which, when attempts are made to solve them with single optimal solutions,
create another problem. Polarity thinking regards wicked problems as sets of interdependent values or ideas—like
centralizing for efficiency and decentralizing for adaptability—that persist together over time and need each other for
the success of the system. If we pay attention to one pole at the expense of the other, we achieve sub-optimal results.
When we manage polarities as a system, we realize the benefits of both poles and achieve high performance over
time with a minimum of vacillation and the need for correction.
Other disciplines that are critical to project success are understanding and making best use of new ways of thinking
about issues and relating to others in more flexible and adaptive ways. Theories of cognitive complexity and adult
development theory can contribute to how we think about this problem. For example, “triple-loop learning” (Gragert,
2013), helps us think about issues from a higher level of cognitive complexity. Instead of asking “Are we doing
things right (single loop)?”, we might ask, “Are we doing the right things (double loop)?” or “How do we decide what
is the most effective paradigm to use to influence and create benefit for the system (triple)?”
Purpose
The purpose of the ICCPM roundtables was to help project managers develop new and better ways to lead complex
major projects, by bringing together people from both the buy-side and the supply-side to share their knowledge and
experience and to grow a network of practitioners, professionals, researchers, and educators able to deliver leading
edge complex project management solutions to client organizations and partners around the world (Findlay and
Straus, 2015, p. 489).
Challenges
There are many challenges to be addressed in the complex project management environments. The three top
contenders are 1) developing new ways of thinking, acting, and interacting; 2) developing more robust models of the
system by getting everyone in the room—the project management team and their stakeholders; and 3) steering
projects through multiple disruptive socio-technological shifts using the feature of complex adaptive systems.
“People, their organizations, and their projects need to be capable of

reorganizing into new forms, which are a better fit with the new
context” (Findlay and Straus, 2015, p. 494).

One of the tools Findlay and Straus use to deal with all three challenges in the context of group interaction, such as
the ICCPM round-tables, is the Zing complex adaptive meeting process. The process is used to guide conversation in
the room, to capture, simultaneously display ideas and to help participants integrate and make meaning from the
ideas. The tool was used for the round-tables to help people work together in new ways, develop new and better
models of the system together and to design and pilot new and better decision and learning methods.
The technology “provide[s] a container for a suitably representative sample of the people in the system to meet and
conceptualize a robust model of the system and develop strategies for how to leverage the system” (Findlay and
Straus, 2015, p. 492).
A “talk-type-read-review” (Findlay and Straus, 2015, p. 492) etiquette was employed to organize the session, which,
in complexity theory terms, is a simple rule of interaction. Rich, open-ended questions guide the conversations, the
ideas are read out loud and the common themes or stand out ideas are recorded by the facilitators.
The open-ended questions are asked one at a time to explore all possibilities and reduce complexity. Although,
round-table participants often held opposing views at the beginning of the session, through a processes of continual,
iterative feedback, they ultimately arrived at similar or complementary conclusions by the end of the round-table.
The process “automates”—or helps participants engage in—ways of interacting that incorporate a higher level of
cognitive complexity than the participants might engage in individually, thus facilitating a shift in the group to a
higher level of system performance.
Lessons Learned
The role of leaders of complex projects is to help their organization systems successfully deliver on time and on
budget amidst constant change. Their mandate is to deliver amazing new solutions while making few or no
mistakes—a challenging goal even in far less complex environments. In order to be successful, project leaders (and
their teams) need new systems structures—new tools and methods—that reliably get better results. They need to
have a robust and fresh understanding of the systems over which they preside and how they might influence them to
greatest effect.
No longer can the complex project leader go off into a corner and design a project and then try to sell it to the
community and political leaders, for example. Leaders now need to involve the whole system in the design of a
project from its inception through to completion. They need to deal with wicked problems not by looking for the one
best solution, but by integrating and leveraging competing ideas. This requires a shift in perspective: from attempting
to “control” a complex project system as one might control a mechanical device, to understanding projects as highly
complex and interconnected “living” systems that evolve over time. While we do not have “control” over our systems
in the classical sense, we can exert influence very effectively, provided that we constantly update our understanding
of what is going on and learn new ways to act and interact that are more likely to achieve our desired outcomes.
To achieve this, leaders need to develop the capacity to “anticipate the skills, leadership and coordination roles,
technologies, methods, and processes that will be required to successfully surf the waves of change…” (Findlay and
Straus, 2015, p. 501).
The 2012 ICCPM round-table series discussion paper (ICCPM, 2012) uses the example of a system undergoing
transformation of many levels to illustrate the difficulty that complex project leaders face:
“The issue has been characterized as learning to fly a plane, while the
plane is already in the air, and being re-assembled into another kind
of transportation technology altogether. And, at the same time, the
current passengers are disembarking and another group is boarding that
demands a better quality of service or experience at lower cost than
ever before. (ICCPM 2015 p. 21)”
This case study illustrates the need, in times of accelerating change, of “a real-time, systems-wide approach to the
development of the methods and tools for managing complex projects” (Findlay and Straus, 2015, p. 500) so leaders
can deal successfully and creatively with uncertainty and ambiguity.
References
Works Cited
Ashby, R. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
Bar Yam, Y. 2004. Making Things Work: Solving Complex Problems in a Complex World. Cambridge, MA, USA:
Knowledge Press.
Conant, R., and R. Ashby. 1970. "Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system". International
Journal of System Sciences. 1(2): 89-97.
Findlay, J., and A. Straus. 2011. "A shift from systems to complex adaptive systems thinking". In O. Bodrova and N.
Mallory (Eds.), Complex Project Management Task Force Report: Compendium of Working Papers. Canberra,
Australia: International Centre for Complex Project Management: 24-26.
Findlay, J., and A. Straus. 2015. "Complex Adaptive Operating System: Creating Methods for Complex Project
Management". In Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering. Gorod,
A., White, B.E., Ireland, V., Gandhi, S.J., and Sauser, B. (Eds.). Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press: 471-505.
Gragert, T. 2013. Triple loop learning. Thorston’s site. Available http:/ / www. thorsten. org/ wiki/ index.
php?title=Triple_Loop_Learning.Accessed 12 June, 2015.
IBM. 2008. Making Change Work. New York, NY, USA: IBM.
ICCPM. 2012. Roundtable discussion paper: Complexity in a time of global financial change: Program delivery for
the new economy. Findlay, J., Straus, A., and Hatcher, C. (Eds). Canberra, Australia: International Centre for
Complex Project Management.
Meadows, D. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, Vermont, USA: Chelsea Green
Publishing.
Requisite Variety. 2015. What is Requisite Variety?. Available http:/ / requisitevariety. co. uk/
what-is-requisite-variety.Accessed 1 June, 2015.
Wheatley, M. 1999. Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco,
California, USA: Berrett-Koehler.
Primary References
Findlay, J., and Straus, A. 2015. "Complex adaptive operating systems: Creating methods for complex project
management". In Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering. Gorod,
A., White, B.E., Ireland, V., Gandhi, S.J., and Sauser, B. (Eds.). Boca Raton: CRC Press: 471-505.
None.

1101
Medical System Examples
Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump

This case study summarizes the systems engineering aspects of the next-generation Symbiq™ IV (intravenous)
medical pump development. Symbiq™ was developed by Hospira Inc. and documented in detail in Chapter 5 of the
National Research Council book, Human-System Integration in the System Development Process. As described in
the book, Symbiq™'s purpose was “to deliver liquid medications, nutrients, blood and other solutions at programmed
flow rates, volumes and time intervals via intravenous and other routes to a patient, primarily for hospital use with
secondary limited feature use by patients at home" (Pew 2007).
Domain Background
This case study provides insight into the use of systems engineering practices in a medical application.

The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council,
whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The study was supported by Award Nos. W911NF-05-0150 and FA5650-06-1-6610 between the National Academy
of Sciences, the U.S. Department of the Army, and the U.S. Department of the Air Force.

In creating a next-generation product, Hospira proposed to introduce new IV pump features, such as:
• multi-channel vs. single-channel liquid delivery;
• the ability to group multi-channeled devices together;
• associated user-programming capabilities and programmable drug libraries for specifying parallel delivery of
liquids;
• use of color touchscreen devices;
• integration with numerous types of hospital information systems;
• ease of use for both medical personnel and patients at home;
• handling of potential hardware, software, and human-user faults;
• compliance with U.S. and international safety standards;
• use of alternating-current or battery power; and
• the ability to be cost-competitive and attractive to traditional medical and hospital administration personnel.
Many of these features are highly coupled, such as the multi-channel hardware controls, concurrent software
synchronization, distinctive displays and alarms for multi-channel devices, and rigorous medical safety standards.
Views of the resulting medical infusion pump can be found as Figures 5-5 and 5-6 in Chapter 5, page 107 of the Pew
and Mavor (2007) book. Systems engineering for the device involved a great deal of concurrent analysis and
engineering of its hardware, software, human factors, operational, business, and safety aspects. It has been a
commercial success and won the 2006 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society’s User-Centered Product Design
Award and the 2007 Medical Design Excellence Award.

Not only were there numerous technical challenges in the development of Symbiq™, but there were also challenges
in the systems engineering of a product with a life-cycle operational concept that would produce satisfactory
outcomes for a wide variety of product and operational stakeholders whose value propositions were often in some
conflict. Some stakeholders wanted numerous features that would require a complex user interface, while others
wanted a simple and easy to learn interface. Some users wanted the most advanced color touchscreen displays
available, while others wanted a simpler, less-expensive product that was harder to misuse due to inadvertent screen
commands. Some organizations felt that a minimal interpretation of the required safety features would be acceptable,
while others advocated ultrahigh assurance levels. Some marketing personnel wanted a quick development and
fielding of the basic product to capture market share, while maintainers wanted initial built-in life cycle support,
maintenance, and diagnostic capabilities.
In such situations, many organizations focus on making quick requirement decisions and rapidly proceed into
development. However, Hospira’s understanding of the uncertainties and risks caused them to pursue a risk-driven,
incremental commitment course of buying information to reduce risk, as emphasized in the SEBoK Part 3
knowledge area on Risk Management. As described in Pew and Mavor (2007), Hospira used a version of the
Incremental Commitment Spiral Model (ICSM) summarized in the SEBoK Part 3 Knowledge Area on representative
systems engineering process models. The following sections describe the project’s incremental system definition
progress through the ICSM exploration, valuation, foundations, and Development phases. Some evolution of
terminology has occurred, the Pew and Mavor (2007) version uses ICM instead of ICSM and "architecting phase"
instead of "foundations phase".
Symbiq™ Exploration Phase Summary

In the exploration phase, the project carried out numerous analyses on stakeholder needs, technical opportunities,
and business competition. Using these analyses, the project team determined ranges of preferred options. Stakeholder
needs analyses included contextual inquiry via shadowing of nurses using IV pumps and followup interviews, as
well as creating task flow diagrams, use environment analyses, and user profiles analyses. Technical opportunity
analyses included initial conceptual designs of multi-channel pump configurations, evaluation of commercially
available single-color and multicolor display devices with touchscreen capabilities, and software approaches for
specifying multi-channel delivery options and synchronizing concurrent processes.
Business competition analyses included hiring a management and marketing planning firm to examin
next-generation pump competitor strengths and weaknesses with respect to such capabilities as the number of pump
channels, therapies, programming options, air-in-line management, battery and alternating current capabilities,
biomedical domain expertise, and alarms. Several key competitive advantages of a next-generation pump were
identified, such as the ability to read bar-codes, small size, light weight, stand-alone functional channels, an
extensive drug library, a high level of reliability, and clear mapping of screen displays and pumping channels.
Market research and market segment analyses also identified market windows, pricing alternatives, hospital
purchasing decision-making trends, and safety aspects. These were iterated by focus groups of key thought leaders in
critical care. The results were factored into a product concept plan, cost analysis, and business case analysis. These
were independently reviewed by experts as part of the ICSM Valuation Phase Commitment Review process, which
resulted in a go-ahead decision with an identification of several risks to be managed.
Symbiq™ Valuation Phase Summary

The valuation phase focused on the major risks highlighted in the Valuation Commitment Review, such as the
multi-channel pump options, the types of programmable therapies, the need for tailorable medication libraries, the
display screen and user interface options, and the safety considerations. The valuation phase also elaborated the
product concept plan for the most attractive general set of options, including a development plan and operations plan,
along with an associated cost analysis, risk analysis, and business case for review at the Foundations Commitment
Review.
The multi-channel pump options were explored via several hardware industrial design mockups and early usability
tests of the mockups. These included evaluation of such desired capabilities as semi-automatic cassette loading,
special pole-mounting hardware, stacking of and total number of channels, and tubing management features. The
evaluations led to the overall all choice to use a semi-automatic cassette loading capability with a red-yellow-green
LED display to indicate concerns with the loading mechanism and with the pump in general.
Field exercises with prototypes of the pole mountings indicated the need for quick release and activation
mechanisms, which were subsequently implemented. Risk analyses of alternative stacking mechanisms and the
potential number of channels available established a preference for side-by-side stacking, a decision to develop one
and two channel units, and to support a maximum of four channels in a stacked configuration.
The types of programmable therapies considered included continuous delivery for a specified time period, patient
weight-based dosing, piggyback or alternating delivery between the two channels, tapered or ramped-rate delivery,
intermittent-interval delivery, variable-time delivery, and multistep delivery. These were evaluated via prototyping
of the software on a simulated version of the pump complexes and were iterated until satisfactory versions were
found.
Evaluation of the tailorable medication libraries addressed the issue that different hard and soft safety limits were
needed for dosages in different care settings (e.g., emergency room, intensive care, oncology, pediatric care, etc.)
which creates a need for hospitals to program their own soft limits (overridable by nurses with permission codes) and
hard limits (no overrides permitted). Stakeholder satisfaction with the tailoring features was achieved via prototype
exercises and iteration with representative hospital personnel.
A literature review was conducted to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of leading input and
display technologies, including cost and reliability data. After down-selecting to three leading vendors of touch
screen color LCD displays and further investigating their costs and capabilities, a business risk analysis focused on
the trade offs between larger displays and customer interest in small-footprint IV pumps. The larger display was
selected based on better readability features and the reduced risk of accidental user entries since the larger screen
buttons would help to avoid these occurrences. Extensive usability prototyping was done with hardware mockups
and embedded software that delivered simulated animated graphic user interface (GUI) displays to a touchscreen
interface that was integrated into the hardware case.
The safety risk analysis in the valuation phase followed ISO 14971:2000 standards for medical device design,
focusing on Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs). This analysis was based on the early high-level design,
such as entry of excessive drug doses or misuse of soft safety limit overrides. Subsequent-phase FMEAs would
elaborate this analysis, based on the more detailed designs and implementations.
As in the exploration phase, the results of the valuation phase analyses, plans, budgets for the succeeding phases, the
resulting revised business case, evidence of solution feasibility, and remaining risks with their risk management
plans were reviewed by independent experts and the ICSM Foundations Commitment Review was passed, subject to
a few risk level and risk management adjustments.
Symbiq™ Foundations Phase Summary

During the foundations phase, considerable effort was focused on addressing the identified risks such as the need for
prototyping the full range of GUI usage by the full range of targeted users, including doctors, home patients, the
need for interoperability of the Symbiq™ software with the wide variety of available hospital information systems,
and the need for fully detailed FMEAs and other safety analyses. Comparable added effort went into detailed
planning for development, production, operations, and support, providing more accurate inputs for business case
analyses.
GUI prototyping was done with a set of usability objectives, such as
• 90% of experienced nurses will be able to insert the cassette the first time while receiving minimal training;
• 99% will be able to correct any insertion errors;
• 90% of first time users with no training will be able to power the pump off when directed; and
• 80% of patient users would rate the overall ease of use of the IV pump three or higher on a five-point scale (with
five being the easiest to use).
Similar extensive evaluations were done on the efficacy and acceptability of the audio alarms, including the use of a
patient and intensive care unit simulator that included other medical devices that produced noises, as well as other
distractions such as ringing telephones. These evaluations were used to enable adjustment of the alarms and to make
the visual displays easier to understand.
Software interoperability risk management involved extensive testing of representative interaction scenarios between
the Symbiq™ software and a representative set of hospital information systems. These resulted in several
adjustments to the software interoperability architecture. Also, as the product was being developed as a platform for
the next generation of infusion pump products, the software design was analyzed for overspecialization to the initial
product, resulting in several revisions. Similar analyses and revisions were performed for the hardware design.
As the design was refined into complete build-to specifications for the hardware and the operational software, the
safety analyses were elaborated into complete FMEAs of the detailed designs. These picked up several potential
safety issues, particularly involving the off-nominal usage scenarios, but overall confirmed a high assurance level for
the safety of the product design. However, the safety risk assessment recommended a risk management plan for the
development phase to include continued FMEAs, thorough off-nominal testing of the developing product’s hardware
and software, and extensive beta-testing of the product at representative hospitals prior to a full release.
This plan and the other development and operations phase plans, product feasibility evidence, and business case
analysis updates were reviewed at a Development Commitment Review, which resulted in a commitment to proceed
into the development phase.
Symbiq™ Development Phase Systems Engineering Summary

The development phase was primarily concerned with building and testing the hardware and software to the build-to
specifications, but continued to have an active systems engineering function to support change management;
operations, production, and support planning and preparation; and further safety assurance activities as
recommended in the risk management plan for the phase.
For hospital beta-testing, thoroughly bench-tested and working beta versions of the IV pump were deployed in two
hospital settings. The hospitals programmed drug libraries for at least two clinical care areas. The devices were used
for about four weeks. Surveys and interviews were conducted with the users to capture their “real world” experiences
with the pump. Data from the pump usage and interaction memory was also analyzed and compared to the original
doctors’ orders. The beta tests revealed a number of opportunities to make improvements, including revision of the
more annoying alarm melodies and the data entry methods for entering units of medication delivery time in hours or
minutes.
Usability testing was also conducted on one of the sets of abbreviated instructions called TIPS cards. These cards
serve as reminders for how to complete the most critical tasks. Numerous suggestions for improvement in the TIPS
cards themselves, as well as the user interface, came from this work, including how to reset the “Air-in-Line” alarm
and how to check all on-screen help text for accuracy.
The above mentioned usability objectives were used as acceptance criteria for the validation usability tests. These
objectives were met. For example, the calculated task completion accuracy was 99.66% for all tasks for first time
nurse users with minimal training. There were a few minor usability problems uncovered that were subsequently
fixed without major changes to the GUI or effects on critical safety related tasks.
The risk analysis was iterated and revised as the product development matured. FMEAs were updated for safety
critical risks associated with three product areas: the user interface, the mechanical and electrical subsystems, and the
product manufacturing process. Some detailed implementation problems were found and fixed, but overall the risk of
continuing into full-scale production, operations, and support was minimal. Systems engineering continued into the
operations phase, primarily to address customer change requests and problem reports, and to participate in planning
for a broader product line of IV pumps.
Overall, customer satisfaction, sales, and profits from the Symbiq™ IV pump have been strong and satisfaction
levels from the management, financial, customer, end user, developer, maintainer, regulatory, and
medical-community stakeholders have been quite high (Pew 2007).
Summary
In summary, the Symbiq™ Medical Infusion Pump Case Study provides an example of the use of the systems
engineering practices discussed in the SEBoK. As appropriate for a next-generation, advanced technology product, it
has a strong focus on risk management, but also illustrates the principles of synthesis, holism, dynamic behavior,
adaptiveness, systems approach, progressive entropy reduction, and progressive stakeholder satisfying discussed in
Part 2 of the SEBoK. It provides an example of an evolutionary and concurrent systems engineering process, such as
the incremental commitment spiral process, and of other knowledge areas discussed in SEBoK Parts 3 and 4, such as
system definition, system realization, system engineering management, and specialty engineering.
References
Works Cited
Pew, R. and A. Mavor. 2007. Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look.
Primary References
None.
None.

Medical Radiation
Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, John Brackett
This case study presents system and software engineering issues relevant to the accidents associated with the
Therac-25 medical linear accelerator that occurred between 1985 and 1988. The six accidents caused five deaths and
serious injury to several patients. The accidents were system accidents that resulted from complex interactions
between hardware components, controlling software, and operator functions.
Domain Background
Medical linear accelerators, devices used to treat cancer, accelerate electrons to create high energy beams that can
destroy tumors. Shallow tissue is treated with the accelerated electrons. The electron beam is converted to X-ray
photons to reach deeper tissues. Accidents occur when a patient is delivered an unsafe amount of radiation.
A radiation therapy machine is controlled by software that monitors the machine's status, accepts operator input
about the radiation treatment to be performed, and initializes the machine to perform the treatment. The software
turns the electron beam on in response to an operator command. The software turns the beam off whenever the
treatment is complete, the operator requests the beam to shut down, or when the hardware detects a machine
malfunction. A radiation therapy machine is a reactive system in which the system's behavior is state dependent and
the system's safety depends upon preventing entry into unsafe states. For example, the software controls the
equipment that positions the patient and the beam. The positioning operations can take a minute or more to execute,
thus it is unsafe to activate the electron beam while a positioning operation is in process.
In the early 1980s, Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) developed the Therac-25, a dual-mode (X-rays or electrons)
linear accelerator that can deliver photons at 25 megaelectron volts (MeV) or electrons at various energy levels. The
Therac-25 superseded the Therac-20, the previous 20-MeV dual mode accelerator with a history of successful
clinical use. The Therac-20 used a DEC PDP-11 (Digital Equipment Corporation Programmed Data Processor)
minicomputer for computer control and featured protective circuits for monitoring the electron beam, as well as
mechanical interlocks for policing the machine to ensure safe operation. AECL decided to increase the
responsibilities of the Therac-25 software for maintaining safety and eliminated most of the hardware safety
mechanisms and interlocks. The software, written in PDP-11 assembly language, was partially reused from earlier
products in the Therac product line. Eleven Therac-25s were installed at the time of the first radiation accident in
June 1985.
The use of radiation therapy machines has increased rapidly in the last 25 years. The number of medical radiation
machines in the United States in 1985 was approximately 1000. By 2009 the number had increased to approximately
4450. Some of the types of system problems found in the Therac-25 may be present in the medical radiation devices
currently in use. References to more recent accidents are included below.

The Therac-25 accidents and their causes are well documented in materials from the U.S. and Canadian regulatory
agencies (e.g., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Canadian Bureau of Radiation and Medical
Devices) and in depositions associated with lawsuits brought against AECL. An article by Leveson and Turner
(1993) provides the most comprehensive, publicly available description of the accident investigations, the causes of
the accidents, and the lessons learned relevant to developing systems where computers control dangerous devices.

The Therac-25 accidents are associated with the non-use or misuse of numerous system engineering practices,
especially system verification and validation, risk management, and assessment and control. In addition, numerous
software engineering good practices were not followed, including design reviews, adequate documentation, and
comprehensive software unit and integration tests.
The possibility of radiation accidents increased when AECL made the systems engineering decision to increase the
responsibilities of the Therac-25 software for maintaining safety and eliminated most of the hardware safety
mechanisms and interlocks. In retrospect, the software was not worthy of such trust. In 1983 AECL performed a
safety assessment on the Therac-25. The resulting fault tree did include computer failures, but only those associated
with hardware; software failures were not considered in the analysis.
The software was developed by a single individual using PDP-11 assembly language. Little software documentation
was produced during development. An AECL response to the FDA indicated the lack of software specifications and
of a software test plan. Integrated system testing was employed almost exclusively. Leveson and Turner (1993)
described the functions and design of the software and concluded that there were design errors in how concurrent
processing was handled. Race conditions resulting from the implementation of multitasking also contributed to the
accidents.
AECL technical management did not believe that there were any conditions under which the Therac-25 could cause
radiation overdoses, and this belief was evident in the company’s initial responses to accident reports. The first
radiation overdose accident occurred in June 1985 at the Kennestone Regional Oncology Center in Marietta,
Georgia, where the Therac-25 had been operating for about 6 months. The patient who suffered the radiation
overdose filed suit against the hospital and AECL in October 1985. No AECL investigation of the incident occurred
and FDA investigators later found that AECL had no mechanism in place to follow up potential reports of suspected
accidents. Additionally, other Therac-25 users received no information that an accident had occurred.
Two more accidents occurred in 1985, including a radiation overdose at Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital in
Yakima, Washington that resulted in an accident report to AECL. The AECL technical support supervisor responded
to the hospital in early 1986: “After careful consideration, we are of the opinion that this damage could not have been
produced by any malfunction of the Therac-25 or by any operator error… there have apparently been no other
instances of similar damage to this or other patients.”
In early 1986 there were two accidents at the East Texas Cancer Center in Tyler, Texas, both of which resulted in the
death of the patient within a few months. On March 21, 1986 the first massive radiation overdose occurred, though
the extent of the overdose was not realized at the time. The Therac-25 was shut down for testing the day after the
accident. Two AECL engineers, one from the plant in Canada, spent a day running machine tests but could not
reproduce the malfunction code observed by the operator at the time of the accident. The home office engineer
explained that it was not possible for the Therac-25 to overdose a patient. The hospital physicist, who supervised the
use of the machine, asked AECL if there were any other reports of radiation overexposure. The AECL quality
assurance manager told him that AECL knew of no accidents involving the Therac-25.
On April 11, 1986 the same technician received the same malfunction code when an overdose occurred. Three weeks
later the patient died; an autopsy showed acute high-dose radiation injury to the right temporal lobe of the brain and
to the brain stem. The hospital physicist was able to reproduce the steps the operator had performed and measured
the high radiation dosage delivered. He determined that data-entry speed during editing of the treatment script was
the key factor in producing the malfunction code and the overdose. Examination of the portion of the code
responsible for the Tyler accidents showed major software design flaws. Levinson and Turner (1993) describe in
detail how the race condition occurred in the absence of the hardware interlocks and caused the overdose. The first
report of the Tyler accidents came to the FDA from the Texas Health Department. Shortly thereafter, AECL
provided a medical device accident report to the FDA discussing the radiation overdoses in Tyler.
On May 2, 1986 the FDA declared the Therac-25 defective and required the notification of all customers. AECL was
required to submit to the FDA a corrective action plan for correcting the causes of the radiation overdoses. After
multiple iterations of a plan to satisfy the FDA, the final corrective action plan was accepted by the FDA in the
summer of 1987. The action plan resulted in the distribution of software updates and hardware upgrades that
reinstated most of the hardware interlocks that were part of the Therac-20 design.
AECL settled the Therac-25 lawsuits filed by patients that were injured and by the families of patients who died
from the radiation overdoses. The total compensation has been estimated to be over $150 million.
Summary
Leveson and Turner (1993) describe the contributing factors to Therac-25 accidents: “We must approach the
problems of accidents in complex systems from a systems-engineering point of view and consider all contributing
factors." For the Therac-25 accidents, the contributing factors included:
• management inadequacies and a lack of procedures for following through on all reported incidents;
• overconfidence in the software and the resulting removal of hardware interlocks (causing the software to be a
single point of failure that could lead to an accident);
• less than acceptable software engineering practices; and
• unrealistic risk assessments along with over confidence in the results of those assessments.
Recent Medical Radiation Experience

Between 2009 and 2011, The New York Times published a series of articles by Walter Bogdanich on the use of
medial radiation, entitled “Radiation Boom" (2011).
The following quotations are excerpts from that series:
Increasingly complex, computer-controlled devices are fundamentally changing medical radiation,
delivering higher doses in less time with greater precision than ever before.” But patients often know
little about the harm that can result when safety rules are violated and ever more powerful and
technologically complex machines go awry. To better understand those risks, The New York Times
examined thousands of pages of public and private records and interviewed physicians, medical
physicists, researchers and government regulators. The Times found that while this new technology
allows doctors to more accurately attack tumors and reduce certain mistakes, its complexity has created
new avenues for error — through software flaws, faulty programming, poor safety procedures or
inadequate staffing and training. . . .
Linear accelerators and treatment planning are enormously more complex than 20 years ago,’ said Dr.
Howard I. Amols, chief of clinical physics at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. But
hospitals, he said, are often too trusting of the new computer systems and software, relying on them as if
they had been tested over time, when in fact they have not. . . .
Hospitals complain that manufacturers sometimes release new equipment with software that is poorly
designed, contains glitches or lacks fail-safe features, records show. Northwest Medical Physics
Equipment in Everett, Wash., had to release seven software patches to fix its image-guided radiation
treatments, according to a December 2007 warning letter from the F.D.A. Hospitals reported that the
company’s flawed software caused several cancer patients to receive incorrect treatment, government
records show.
References
Works Cited
Bogdanich, W. 2011. Articles in the "Radiation Boom" series. New York Times. June 2009-February 2011. Accessed
November 28, 2012. Available: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/radiation_boom.
Leveson, N.G., and C.S. Turner. 1993. "An Investigation of the Therac-25 Accidents." Computer. 26 (7): 18-41.
Primary References
None.
None.

Design for Maintainability

This article describes an example of where systems thinking led to a much more practical solution to a common
problem. For additional information, refer to Systems Thinking.
This article is excerpted and condensed from Johnson, S. 2010. Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History
of Innovation. New York, NY, USA: Riverhead Books. pp. 25-28.
Background
In the late 1870s, a Parisian obstetrician named Stephane Tarnier was visiting the Paris Zoo where they had farm
animals. While there, he conceived the idea of adapting a chicken incubator to use for human newborns, and he hired
“the zoo’s poultry raiser to construct a device that would perform a similar function for human newborns.” At the
time infant mortality was staggeringly high “even in a city as sophisticated as Paris. One in five babies died before
learning to crawl, and the odds were far worse for premature babies born with low birth weights.” Tarnier installed
his incubator for newborns at Maternité de Paris and embarked on a quick study of five hundred babies. “The results
shocked the Parisian medical establishment: while 66 percent of low-weight babies died within weeks of birth, only
38 percent died if they were housed in Tarnier’s incubating box. … Tarnier’s statistical analysis gave newborn
incubation the push that it needed: within a few years the Paris municipal board required that incubators be installed
in all the city’s maternity hospitals.” …
Purpose
“Modern incubators, supplemented with high-oxygen therapy and other advances, became standard equipment in all
American hospitals after the end of World War II, triggering a spectacular 75 percent decline in infant mortality rates
between 1950 and 1998.”… “In the developing world, however, the infant mortality story remains bleak. Whereas
infant deaths are below ten per thousand births throughout Europe and the United States, over a hundred infants die
per thousand (births) in countries like Liberia and Ethiopia, many of them premature babies that would have
survived with access to incubators.
Challenges
But modern incubators are complex, expensive things. A standard incubator in an American hospital might cost
more than $40,000 [about €30,000]. But the expense is arguably the smaller hurdle to overcome. Complex
equipment breaks and when it breaks you need both the technical expertise to fix it and replacement parts. In the year
that followed the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the Indonesian city of Meulaboh received eight incubators from a
range of international relief organizations. By late 2008, when an MIT professor named Timothy Prestero visited the
hospital, all eight were out of order, the victims of power surges and tropical humidity, along with the hospital staff’s
inability to read the English repair manual. The Meulaboh incubators were a representative sample: some studies
suggest that as much as 95 percent of medical technology donated to developing countries breaks within the first five
years of use.

“Prestero had a vested interest in those broken incubators, because the organization he founded, Design that Matters,
had been working for several years on a scheme for a more reliable, and less expensive, incubator, one that
recognized complex medical technology was likely to have a very different tenure in a developing world context
than it would in an American or European hospital. Designing an incubator for a developing country wasn’t just a
matter of creating something that worked; it was also a matter of designing something that would break in a
non-catastrophic way. You couldn’t guarantee a steady supply of spare parts, or trained repair technicians. So
instead, Prestero and his team decided to build an incubator out of parts that were already abundant in the developing
world. The idea had originated with a Boston doctor named Jonathan Rosen, who had observed that even the smaller
towns of the developing world seemed to be able to keep automobiles in working order. The towns might lack air
conditioning and laptops and cable television, but they managed to keep their Toyota 4Runners on the road. So
Rosen approached Prestero with an idea: What if you made an incubator out of automobile parts?
Lessons Learned
“Three years after Rosen suggested the idea, the Design that Matters team introduced a prototype device called
NeoNurture. From the outside, it looked like a streamlined modern incubator, but its guts were automotive.
Sealed-beam headlights supplied the crucial warmth; dashboard fans provided filtered air circulation; door chimes
sounded alarms. You could power the device via an adapted cigarette lighter, or a standard-issue motorcycle battery.
Building the NeoNurture out of car parts was doubly efficient, because it tapped both the local supply of parts
themselves and the local knowledge of automobile repair. These were both abundant resources in the developing
world context, as Rosen liked to say. You didn’t have to be a trained medical technician to fix the NeoNurture; you
didn’t even have to read the manual. You just needed to know how to replace a broken headlight.”
References
Works Cited
Johnson, S. 2010. Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. New York, NY, USA:
Riverhead Books. pp. 25-28.
Primary References
Johnson, S. 2010. Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. New York, NY, USA:
Riverhead Books. pp. 25-28.
None.

1112
Space System Examples
Global Positioning System

Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Richard Freeman, Alice Squires, Contributing Authors: Tom Hilburn, Brian White
The Global Positioning System (GPS) case study was developed by the United States Air Force Center for Systems
Engineering (AF CSE) located at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). The GPS is a space-based
radio-positioning system. A constellation of twenty-four satellites, including three spares, comprise the overall
system which provides navigation and timing information to military and civilian users worldwide. GPS satellites, in
one of six Earth orbits, circle the globe every twelve hours, emitting continuous navigation signals on two different
L-band frequencies. The system consists of two other major segments: a world-wide satellite control network, and
the GPS user equipment that can either be carried by a human user or integrated into host platforms such as ships,
vehicles, or aircraft.
This case study discussion is based on the original source (O’Brien and Griffin 2007), which provides useful insights
into what we might consider a "traditional" SE application. A second global positioning case study looks at the same
case study from the perspectives of system of systems (sos) engineering and enterprise systems engineering (ese).
Domain Background
When looking at the Global Positioning System (GPS), it would be difficult to imagine another system that relies so
heavily upon such a wide range of domains, with the possible exception of the World Wide Web (WWW).
Additionally, the various systems operating within these domains must all function together flawlessly to achieve
success. It is evident from reading this case study that it directly relates to the following domains:
• aerospace;
• space;
• communications; and
• transportation.
This is also an example of systems of systems (SoS) and is considered an innovative technology.
The GPS case study includes a detailed discussion of the development of the GPS and its components, as well as
other applicable areas. The reader of this study will gain an increased understanding of the effect that GPS has on
military and commercial industries in the context of the systems engineering support required to achieve success.

The United States Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AF CSE), established in 2002 at the Air Force Institute
of Technology (AFIT), was tasked to develop case studies focusing on the application of systems engineering
principles within various aerospace programs. The GPS case study (O'Brien and Griffin 2007) was developed by
AFIT in support of systems engineering graduate school instruction. The cases are structured using the
Friedman-Sage framework (Friedman and Sage 2003; Friedman and Sage 2004, 84-96), which decomposes a case
into contractor, government, and shared responsibilities in the following nine concept areas:
5. Risk Management
The Friedman-Sage framework (2004) is provided in Appendix A of the case study. This case study is an example
where the government - specifically the JPO Systems Engineering Directorate - bore the responsibility for systems
integration and configuration management. That is, the government played more than an oversight role in the
systems engineering of the GPS system of systems. As mentioned in the case study, JPO developed the CONOPs,
mission analysis, requirements and design analysis including security, and developed their own approach to the
cryptology methodology. JPO coordinated the Configuration Control Board (CCB) chaired by the Program Director.
JPO was also responsible for Level I ICDs and system design configurations; where the contractors were responsible
for the system architecture and ICDs within their segment.

The “Global Positioning System - Systems Engineering Case Study” describes the application of systems engineering
during the concept validation, system design and development, and production phases of the GPS program (O'Brien
and Griffin 2007). The case examines the applied systems engineering processes, as well as the interactions of the
GPS joint program office (JPO), the prime contractors, and the plethora of government agencies that were associated
with the program’s development and fielding. The systems engineering process is traced from the initiation of studies
and the development of key technologies, which established the vision of a satellite navigation system in the 1960s,
through to the multiphase joint program that resulted in a fully operational capability release in 1995. This case study
does not cover system enhancements incorporated through Blocks IIM, IIF, and III.
The GPS case study derived four learning principles (LPs) that explain the more broadly applicable areas of systems
engineering knowledge that are addressed by the case study. These four LPs relate strongly to the SEBoK in the
following areas:
• enabling individuals (LP1);
• configuration management (LP2);
• enabling the organization (LP3); and
• risk management (LP4).
Additionally, the GPS case study contains a thorough overview of life cycle management and exemplifies systems
thinking principles.
Enabling Individuals
Learning Principle 1: Programs must strive to staff key positions with domain experts.
From the program management team, to the systems engineering, design, manufacturing, and operations teams, the
individuals on the program were well-versed in their disciplines and all possessed a systems view of the program.
While communications, working relationships, and organization were important, it was the ability of the whole team
at all levels to understand the implications of their work on the system that was vital. Their knowledge-based
approach for decision making had the effect of shortening the decision cycle because the information was understood
and the base and alternative solutions were accurately presented.
Configuration Management
Learning Principle 2: The systems integrator must rigorously maintain program baselines.
The joint program office (JPO) retained the role of managing and controlling the system specification and, therefore,
the functional baseline. The JPO derived and constructed a mutually-agreed-to set of system requirements that
became the program baseline in 1973. While conducting the development program, the GPS team was able to make
performance, risk, cost, and trade analyses against the functional baseline to control both risk and cost. The JPO was
fully cognizant of the implications of the functional requirements on the allocated baseline because they managed the
interface control working group process. Managing that process gave them first-hand knowledge and insight into the
risks at the lowest level. The individual with the system integrator role must rigorously maintain the system
specification and functional baseline. There must be appropriate sharing of management and technical
responsibilities between the prime contractor and their government counterparts to ensure success.
Enabling the Organization

Learning Principle 3: Achieving consistent and continuous high-level support and advocacy helps funding stability,
which impacts systems engineering stability.
Consistent, continuous high-level support provides the requirements and assists funding stability. In this role, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) provided advocacy and sourced the funding at critical times in the
program, promoted coordination among the various services, and reviewed and approved the GPS JPO system
requirements. The OSD played the central role in the establishment and survivability of the program. The GPS JPO
had clear support from the Director of Defense Development, Research, and Engineering, Dr. Malcolm Currie, and
program support from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. David Packard. Clearly, the armed services –
particularly the Navy and the Air Force early on, and later the Army – were the primary users of GPS and the
eventual customers. However, each armed service had initial needs for their individual programs, or for the
then-current operational navigation systems. Additionally, the secretary of the Air Force provided programmatic
support to supply manpower and facilities.
Risk Management
Learning Principle 4: Disciplined and appropriate risk management must be applied throughout the life cycle.
The GPS program was structured to address risk in several different ways throughout the multiphase program.
Where key risks were known up front, the contractor and/or the government utilized a classic risk management
approach to identify and analyze risk, as well as develop and track mitigation actions. These design (or
manufacturing/launch) risks were managed by the office who owned the risks. Identified technical risks were often
tracked by technical performance measures (such as satellite weight and software lines of codes) and addressed at
weekly chief engineer’s meetings.
Serving in the clear role of program integrator allowed the JPO to sponsor risk trade studies at the top level. The JPO
would issue study requests for proposals to several bidders for developing concepts and/or preliminary designs.
Then, one contractor would be down-selected and the process would continue. This approach provided innovative
solutions through competition, as well as helped in defining a lower risk, more clearly defined development program
for the fixed-price contracts approach that was being used for development and production.
As the system integrator, the JPO was also closely involved with technical development. To identify unforeseeable
unique technical challenges, the JPO would fund studies to determine the optimal approaches to new issues. There
were schedule risks associated with the first launch due to unforeseen Block II issues with respect to the space
vehicle and control segments (software development). Although it was a catastrophic event, the Challenger accident
actually provided much needed schedule relief. Using decision analysis methodology led the JPO to an alternative
approach to develop the expendable launch vehicle for the Block II satellites.
Good communication, facilitated by cooperative working relationships, was a significantly positive (though
intangible) factor in the success of the GPS program, regardless of whether it was between the contractors and the
government (JPO or other agencies), or between contractors and sub-contractors. A true team environment also
played a significant role in reducing risk, especially considering the plethora of government agencies and contractors
that were involved in the effort.
Life Cycle Management

The GPS case study takes the reader through the initial concept of GPS (March 1942) all the way to the
development, production, and operational capability of the system. The current GPS program traces its heritage to
the early 1960s when Air Force Systems Command initiated satellite-based navigation systems analyses conducted
by The Aerospace Corporation. The case study follows the execution of the GPS program from the inception of the
idea to the full operational capability release on April 27th, 1995. The concentration of the case study is not limited
to any particular period, and the learning principles come from various times throughout the program’s life.
Systems Thinking
The GPS case study highlights the need for systems thinking throughout. GPS satellites, in one of six Earth orbits,
circle the globe every twelve hours. These satellites emit continuous navigation signals on two different L-band
frequencies. The system consists of two other major segments: a world-wide satellite control network and the GPS
user equipment that can either be carried by a human user, or integrated into host platforms such as ships, vehicles,
or aircraft. The ability to conceive, develop, produce, field, and sustain the GPS demands the highest levels of
systems thinking.
Summary
The GPS case study is useful for global systems engineering learning and provides a comprehensive perspective on
the systems engineering life cycle. The study is applicable for detailed instruction in the following areas:
• enabling individuals;
• configuration management;
• enabling the organization;
• risk management;
• life cycle management; and
• systems thinking.
The GPS case study revealed that key Department of Defense personnel maintained a clear and consistent vision for
this unprecedented, space-based navigation capability. The case study also revealed that good fortune was enjoyed
by the JPO as somewhat independent, yet critical, space technologies matured in a timely manner.
Although the GPS program required a large degree of integration, both within the system and external to the system,
amongst a multitude of agencies and contractors, the necessary efforts were taken to achieve success.
Lastly, the reader of the GPS case study will gain an increased understanding of the effect that GPS has on the
military and commercial industries in the context of the systems engineering support required to achieve success.
The system was originally designed to help “drop five bombs in one hole” which defines the accuracy requirement in
context-specific terms. The GPS signals needed to be consistent, repeatable, and accurate to a degree that, when used
by munitions guidance systems, would result in the successful delivery of multiple, separately-guided munitions to
virtually the identical location anywhere at any time across the planet. Forty to fifty years ago, very few outside of
the military recognized the value of the proposed accuracy and most non-military uses of GPS were not recognized
before 1990. GPS has increasingly grown in use and is now used every day.
References
Works Cited
Friedman, G.R. and A.P. Sage. 2003. Systems Engineering Concepts: Illustration Through Case Studies. Accessed
September 2011. Available at: http://www.afit.edu/cse/docs/Friedman-Sage%20Framework.pdf.
Friedman, G. and A. Sage. 2004. "Case studies of systems engineering and management in systems acquisition."
Systems Engineering. 7(1): p. 84-96.
O’Brien, Patrick J., and John M. Griffin. 4 October 2007. Global Positioning System. Systems Engineering Case
Study. Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFIT/SY) Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). 2950
Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765.
Primary References
O’Brien, Patrick J., and John M. Griffin. 4 October 2007. Global Positioning System. Systems Engineering Case
Study. Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFIT/SY) Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). 2950
Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765.
none.

Global Positioning System II

This article highlights some of the differences between the so-called classical, traditional, or conventional systems
engineering (SE) approaches and the newer, and, as yet, less defined principles of system of systems (SoS)
engineering (SoSE), enterprise systems engineering (ESE), and/or complex systems engineering (CSE) or complex
adaptive systems engineering (Gorod et al. 2015). The topic is still somewhat controversial, especially considering
those that are skeptical that broader views of SE might work better when one is immersed in trying to cope with our
most difficult problems. Indeed, the lack of a unified theory of SE is one of the prime motivations for producing and
analyzing case studies to develop more knowledge of what seems to work, what does not seem to work, and reasons
why, really challenging SE environments.
For addition information, refer to Systems Engineering: Historic and Future Challenges, Systems Engineering and
Other Disciplines, Enterprise Systems Engineering, and System of Systems Engineering.
Rather than modifying the previous discussion of the Global Positioning System Case Study in SEBoK, the focus is
on comparing and contrasting the older and newer forms of SE by commenting on quotations from the original case
study source documents (O’Brien and Griffin 2007).
Preface
The original case study begins by describing systems engineering (SE) principles. For example,
System requirements are critical to all facets of successful system program development. First, system
development must proceed from a well-developed set of requirements. Second, regardless of the
evolutionary acquisition approach, the system requirements must flow down to all subsystems and
lower-level components. And third, the system requirements must be stable, balanced, and must
properly reflect all activities in all intended environments. However, system requirements are not
unchangeable. As the system design proceeds, if a requirement or set of requirements is proving
excessively expensive to satisfy, the process must rebalance schedule, costs, and performance by
changing or modifying the requirements or set of requirements. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 9)
The Global Positioning System (GPS), including its multi-various applications, was developed over many years as
the result of the efforts of a host of contributors. It is very difficult to believe that the classical, traditional or
conventional systems engineering approach described in the above paragraph (especially those phrases highlighted in
bold by the present authors) was truly responsible for this remarkable achievement that so profoundly impacts our
lives. Rather, some more advanced form of systems engineering (SE), that might be called system of systems (SoS)
engineering (SoSE), enterprise systems engineering (ESE), or complex (adaptive) systems engineering (CSE), or a
blend and/or combination of these approaches or methodologies, had to be responsible. This premise is supported
explicitly and repeatedly in the following case study revision using bold font.
Continuing, the following quoted paragraphs seem flawed in several places highlighted in bold. The bold phrases
might be replaced by the phrases in brackets […]. Such brackets might also include other editorial comments of the
present authors.
Systems engineering includes making key system and design trades early in the process to establish the
system architecture. ‘’’These architectural artifacts’’’ [This architecture] can depict any new system,
legacy system, modifications thereto, introduction of new technologies, and overall system-level
behavior and performance. Modeling and simulation are generally employed to organize and assess
architectural system alternatives at this stage. System and subsystem design follows the functional
[system] architecture [as defined from a functional point of view]. System architectures designs are
modified if elements are too risky, expensive, or time-consuming. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 9)
A good architecture, once established, should guide systems development, and not change very much, if at all, at
least compared to possible changes in the system design, which, of course, can evolve as one learns more about the
problem and potential solutions that may increase the system’s capability. Thus, it is crucial to not confuse
architecture with designs instantiating the architecture, contrary to what seems to be the case in (Ricci, et al. 2013).
Important to the efficient decomposition and creation of functional and physical architectural designs are
the management of interfaces and the integration of subsystems. Interface management and integration
is applied to subsystems within a system or across a large, complex system of systems. Once a solution
is planned, analyzed, designed, and constructed, validation and verification take place to ensure
satisfaction of requirements. Definition of test criteria, measures of effectiveness (MOEs), and measures
of performance (MOPs) are established as part of the requirements process, taking place well before any
component/subsystem assembly design and construction occurs. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 10)
In the quoted paragraph just above, bold phrases note the emphasis on a reductionist approach, reductionism, where
great attention is paid to the subsystems and managing the interfaces among them. This is the antithesis of a holistic
approach where one concentrates on the whole system, recognizing that it is difficult to identify overall system
behavior as depending on any particular subsystem or set of subsystems. In a truly complex system that is
continually evolving, the above-mentioned requirements process is flawed because the system is continually
changing, i.e., the system is evolutionary; the requirements are either ill-defined at the outset, or are modified
because stakeholderschange their minds, or become somewhat irrelevant because the system environment changes.
There are several excellent representations of the [usual traditional or conventional] systems engineering
process presented in the literature. These depictions present the current state of the art in maturity and
evaluation of the systems engineering process. One can find systems engineering process definitions,
guides, and handbooks from the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), European
Industrial Association (EIA), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and various
Department of Defense (DoD) agencies and organizations. They show the process as it should be
applied [Really? In all situations?] by today’s experienced practitioner. One of these processes, long
used by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), is [a model] not accomplished in a single pass. This
iterative and nested process gets repeated to the lowest level of definition of the design and its
interfaces. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 10)
The above description appears to be written with pride without any acknowledgement that this SE methodology
might fail to work if applied according to these guidelines, or that there might be new SE techniques that could be
more effective in some situations. Again, this reflects a reductionist approach that ignores holism and emergent
properties that might not be explained even when thoroughly understanding the systems components and their
interactions. On the positive side, the next paragraph suggests how the world is changing and hints that something
more is needed. Nevertheless, the advice seems to be oriented toward applying the existing SE discipline more
vigorously instead of seeking new methods that might be more effective.
The DAU model, like all others, has been documented in the last two decades, and has expanded and
developed to reflect a changing environment. Systems are becoming increasingly complex internally and
more interconnected externally. The process used to develop aircraft and systems of the past was
effective at the time. It served the needs of the practitioners and resulted in many successful systems in
our inventory. Notwithstanding, the cost and schedule performance of the past programs are replete with
examples of well-managed programs and ones with less-stellar execution. As the nation entered the
1980s and 1990s, large DoD and commercial acquisitions experienced overrunning costs and slipping
schedules. The aerospace industry and its organizations were becoming larger and were more
geographically and culturally distributed. Large aerospace companies have worked diligently to
establish common systems engineering practices across their enterprises. However, because of the
mega-trend of teaming in large (and some small) programs, these common practices must be understood
and used beyond the enterprise and to multiple corporations. It is essential that the systems engineering
process govern integration, balance, allocation, and verification, and be useful to the entire program
team down to the design and interface level. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 11)
Finally, in the next paragraph, there is a suggestion that SE could be made more sophisticated but there is no mention
of addressing people problems or advocating a broader transdisciplinary approach.
Today, many factors overshadow new acquisition; including system-of-systems (SoS) context, network
centric warfare and operations, and rapid growth in information technology. These factors are driving a
more sophisticated systems engineering process with more complex and capable features, along with
new tools and procedures. One area of increased focus of the systems engineering process is the
informational systems architectural definitions used during system analysis. This process, described in
DoD Architectural Framework (DoDAF), emphasizes greater reliance on reusable architectural views
describing the system context and concept of operations, interoperability, information and data flows,
and network service-oriented characteristics. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 11)
The last two sections of the systems engineering principles portion of the original case study address case studies
themselves, mainly for academic purposes, to help people appreciate systems engineering principles, and the
framework used in the case study, namely the rather narrowly defined Friedman-Sage framework that will be
discussed briefly in Section II below.
The treatment of the reason for case studies is quite good in that it talks about the benefits of applying systems
engineering principles, as highlighted from real-world examples of what works and what does not. Except near the
end, where there is allusion to the possibility of new endeavor systems engineering principles, the principles
espoused tend to be traditional or conventional.
On the other hand, based upon the original case study (O’Brien and Griffin 2007), if one views the boundary of the
GPS system to include primarily the technology associated with the GPS space segment and its controlling ground
network, then it can be assumed that system was likely implemented primarily by following traditional or
conventional systems engineering processes. If one takes this viewpoint, then all of the above criticism which
attempts to point out some of the shortcomings of conventional systems engineering, may seem vacuous at best, or
politically incorrect at worst. It may well be that many would rather not denigrate the original GPS case study by
exposing it to the possibilities of a broader system engineering approach.
Unless otherwise indicated, as the present authors have already been doing, unchanged quotations from the existing
SEBoK are indented below. Modifications to such quotations are shown in brackets [...]; deletions are not
necessarily shown explicitly.
Background
The Global Positioning System (GPS) case study was developed by the United States Air Force Center
for Systems Engineering (AF CSE) located at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). The GPS is
a space-based radio-positioning system. A constellation of twenty-four satellites, including three spares,
comprise the overall system which provides navigation and timing information to military and civilian
users worldwide. GPS satellites, in one of six Earth orbits, circle the globe every twelve hours, emitting
continuous navigation signals on two different L-band frequencies. The system consists of two other
major segments: a world-wide satellite control network, and the GPS user equipment that can either be
carried by a human user or integrated into host platforms such as ships, vehicles, or aircraft.
A user needs to receive signals from at least four GPS satellites simultaneously (satellite orbital positions and
terrestrial terrain blockage can be issues that degrade performance) to determine one’s position in three dimensions;
the altitude determination is typically less accurate than the other two dimensions.
When looking at [GPS], it would be difficult to imagine another system that relies so heavily upon such
a wide range of [domains containing systems that must interact effectively to achieve successful GPS
operation]. It is evident that [GPS directly relates to many domains and applications including:
• position location and tracking
• time synchronization
• navigation
• transportation
• times of arrival
• air traffic management
• situational awareness
• jam-resistant communications
• business and commerce
• farming
• aerospace
• sensing nuclear detonations from space
• military war-fighting
• targeting
• weapons delivery
• etc.].
[GPS is] an example of [a collaborative (Dahmann, et al. 2008) systems of systems (SoS)]. As such, no
one is in charge, and the capabilities (not requirements) flow from the bottom-up, as opposed to
top-down.
Purpose
The GPS case study includes a detailed discussion of the development of the GPS and its components,
as well as other applicable areas. The reader of this study will gain an increased understanding of the
effect that GPS has on military and commercial industries in the context of the systems engineering
support required to achieve success.
This may be, but the principal purpose of this revised case study is to suggest a broader view of GPS that discusses
signature aspects of SoS, enterprises, and complex systems, and emphasizes SoSE, ESE, and CSE.
[AF CSE] was tasked to develop case studies focusing on the application of [SE] principles within
various aerospace programs. The GPS case study [was developed in support of SE] graduate school
instruction using the Friedman-Sage framework (Friedman and Sage 2003) (Friedman and Sage 2004).]
However, the Friedman-Sage framework involves only two contractual stakeholders, the Government and the
contractor; further, the framework is limited to the traditional or conventional SE life cycle which mainly treats
activities in a linear instead of nonlinear fashion; still further, only risks are considered, not a balance of risk and
opportunity. Thus, the present authors believe a broader framework embracing SoSE, ESE, and CSE is more
appropriate.
Challenges
In the original case study, the first highly technical section (Section 2) was the system description. The original idea
derived from trying to determine the precise orbital parameters of the first artificial satellites, such as Sputnik,
launched by the Soviets in 1957. Researchers at Johns Hopkins realized the inverse, that if one knew precisely the
orbital parameters, the locations of ground stations receiving satellite signals could be determined quite accurately.
(O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 20.)
GPS got its start in the early 70s (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 19), building upon several previous satellite
navigation systems. The primary motive was very accurate position information for the purposes of military
applications. For example, the U.S. Air Force wanted to deliver nuclear weapons from bombers with unprecedented
accuracy and precision. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 29)
With such an intense interest from the military, the first real challenge, other than the many technical challenges of
making GPS work as well as envisioned, might have been the question of how to make GPS available to the civilian
community so they could share the benefits. The study claimed that the system was always offered for civilian use,
albeit with some charge. After the Korean airliner went astray and got shot down by a Soviet interceptor aircraft,
President Reagan made GPS officially available for civilian use free of charge. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 14)
The second challenge could be associated with preserving precision capabilities for the military only, and relegating
course acquisition (C/A) accuracy to the civilian community. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 15) Later this dichotomy
was essentially eliminated with the realization that a differential GPS configuration involving a fixed ground station
with a precisely known location will yield great accuracy. (Kee, et al. 1991)
The GPS satellites used space-borne atomic clocks. To alleviate the need for updating these clocks too often, a
successful effort was initiated to revise the international time standard which ended up using relatively infrequent
“leap seconds”. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 23) Even these are still annoying for many other applications, such as
the continual need to achieve precise synchronization of frequency-hopping radios.
An organizational challenge of inter-service rivalries was overcome with the formation of the Joint Program Office
(JPO). (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 25.)
In the early days of satellite communication systems, for example, the satellites were quite small and low powered
while the terminals were large and high-powered. By the time GPS came along, the satellites are getting bigger and
more sophisticated. Then the challenge to develop relatively low-cost terminals, particularly for mobile users, greatly
increased. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 29)
A small but interesting challenge was the definition of system of systems (SoS). It was decided that GPS was an SoS
because it involved three independent systems, namely, the space vehicle (SV), the control segment (CS), and the
user equipment (UE), that “merely” had to interface with each other. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 30)
Continually changing requirements is usually a problem, although in this case the requirements did not change as
often as they could have. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 31)
Difficulties of defining and updating the many GPS interfaces was largely overcome by the GPS program director,
Col. Brad Parkinson, when he convinced his own management, Gen. Schultz at Space and Missile Systems Office
(SAMSO) (which eventually became the Space Division) that GPS ought to be defined solely by the
signal-structure-in-space and not the physical interfaces. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 31)

Although the systems engineering process in Phase I has been discussed previously, this section will
expand on the concepts. For example, one of the user equipment contractors was technically competent,
but lacked effective management. The JPO strongly suggested that a systems engineering firm be hired
to assist the contractor in managing the program and they agreed. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 42)
There did not seem to be any mention of what SE firm was hired, if any. The Aerospace Corporation, a non-profit
Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), which had such a key role in the run-up to GPS was
also prominently and centrally involved in development phase of this humungous project. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007,
pp. 20, 22, 25, 33, 34, 40, 41, 44, 48, 50-52, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71)
Lessons Learned
Communications was a key ingredient that was fostered throughout GPS development. (O’Brien and
Griffin 2007, p. 71)
Yes, from reading the original case study there seems to have been a lot of cooperation among the various
organizations, more so than might have been expected in a less compelling case.
Several precepts or foundations of the Global Positioning Satellite program are the reasons for its
success. These foundations are instructional for today’s programs because they are thought-provoking to
those who always seek insight into the program’s progress under scrutiny. These foundations of past
programs are, of course, not a complete set of necessary and sufficient conditions. For the practitioner,
the successful application of different systems engineering processes is required throughout the
continuum of a program, from the concept idea to the usage and eventual disposal of the system.
Experienced people applying sound systems engineering principles, practices, processes, and tools are
necessary every step of the way. Mr. Conley, formerly of the GPS JPO, provided these words: “Systems
engineering is hard work. It requires knowledgeable people who have a vision of the program combined
with an eye for detail.” (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 72)
In very complex systems engineering efforts of this type, it is also important to explore new techniques that attempt
to deal with “soft” issues involving people. Those that seem to work can be added to the systems engineering process
collection.
Systems engineering played a major role in the success of this program. The challenges of integrating
new technologies, identifying system requirements, incorporating a system of systems approach,
interfacing with a plethora of government and industry agencies, and dealing with the lack of an
operational user early in the program formation required a strong, efficient systems engineering process.
The GPS program embedded systems engineering in their knowledge-base, vision, and day-to-day
practice to ensure proper identification of system requirements. It also ensured the allocation of those
requirements to the almost-autonomous segment developments and beyond to the subcontractor/vendor
level, the assessments of new requirements, innovative test methods to verify design performance to the
requirements, a solid concept of operations/mission analysis, a cost-benefit analysis to defend the need
for the program, and a strong system integration process to identify and control the “hydra” of interfaces
that the program encountered. The program was able to avoid major risks by their acquisition strategy,
the use of trade studies, early testing of concept designs, a detailed knowledge of the subject matter, and
the vision of the program on both the government and contractor side. (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 72)
This well summarizes the successful systems engineering approach utilized in GPS. Another element of achieving
overall balance is the pursuit of opportunities as the “flipside” of risk mitigation.
Finally, here is the list of academic questions offered in the original case study.
QUESTIONS FOR THE STUDENT (O’Brien and Griffin 2007, p. 73) The following questions are meant to
challenge the reader and prepare for a case discussion.
• Is this program start typical of an ARPA/ DARPA funded effort? Why or why not?
• Have you experienced similar or wildly different aspects of a Joint Program?
• What were some characteristics that should be modeled from the JPO?
• Think about the staffing for the GPS JPO. How can this be described? Should it be duplicated in today’s
programs? Can it?
• Was there anything extraordinary about the support for this program?
• What risks were present throughout the GPS program. How were these handled?
• Requirement management and stability is often cited as a central problem in DoD acquisition. How was this
program like, or [un]like, most others?
• Could the commercial aspects of the User Equipment be predicted or planned? Should the COTS aspect be a
strategy in other DoD programs, where appropriate? Why or why not?
Other questions might be: What possible influences did the demand for or offering to the public of this GPS
capability entail? What differences in the development of GPS might have emerged if the public was more
aware of the potential applications for their benefit at the outset?
References
Works Cited
Dahmann, J. S., G. Rebovich, Jr., and J. A. Lane. November 2008. “Systems engineering for capabilities.” CrossTalk,
The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. http:/ / www. stsc. hill. af. mil/ crosstalk/ 2008/ 11/ index. html.
Accessed 12 May 2015).
Friedman, G.R., and A.P. Sage. 19 January 2003. Systems Engineering Concepts: Illustration Through Case Studies.
Accessed September 2011. http://www.afit.edu/cse/docs/Friedman-Sage%20Framework.pdf.
Gorod, A., B. E. White, V. Ireland, S. J. Gandhi, and B. J. Sauser. 2015. Case Studies in System of Systems,
Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 2015.
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9781466502390/.Accessed 8 May 2015.
Friedman, G.R., and A.P. Sage. 2004. “Case Studies of Systems Engineering and Management in Systems
Acquisition.” Systems Engineering 7(1): 84-96.
Kee, C., B. W. Parkinson, P. Axelrad. 1991. “Wide area differential GPS.” Journal of The Institute of Navigation
38(2): 123-46.
O’Brien, P. J., and J. M. Griffin. 4 October 2007. Global Positioning System. Systems Engineering Case Study. Air
Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFIT/SY) Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). 2950 Hobson Way,
Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765.
Ricci, N., A. M. Ross, D. H. Rhodes, and M. E. Fitzgerald. 2013. “Considering alternative strategies for value
sustainment in systems-of-systems.” 6th IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). 15-18 April. Orlando,
FL.
Primary References
Gorod, A., B. E. White, V. Ireland, S. J. Gandhi, and B. J. Sauser. 2015. Case Studies in System of Systems,
Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 2015.
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9781466502390/.Accessed 12 May 2015
None

Russian Space Agency Project Management

Systems
This article is based around a Russian space agency Project Management Systems case study (Rzevski and
Skobelev, 2014). The case study focuses on the development of a Real-Time Complex Adaptive Project
Management System capable of effectively managing multiple related projects collectively contributing to a defined
Enterprise Value.
Background
The essence of every management system should be the same: the allocation of human, physical, financial and
intellectual (knowledge) resources to demands (tasks) with the aim of increasing the specified Enterprise Value,
where the Enterprise Value is a system of values such as profit, market share, business sustainability, quality of
service to customers, quality of working conditions for employees, quality of life in the community, etc. The key
difference between the management of a business and management of a project is that businesses are continuously
evolving processes whilst projects have specified beginnings and ends.
Standard challenges for project management are:
• Stringent budgets and deadlines
• High competition for limited resource availability such as up-to-date domain knowledge, skills and advanced
productivity tools
• Functional organization, which inevitably impedes interdepartmental cooperation
• Bureaucratic management, which is more concerned with lines of command and reporting than with the full use
of a project member’s initiative and creativity and which negatively affects their motivation
• Rigid project planning, which leads to a rapid divergence between the project plan and reality
Large enterprises commonly operate several projects concurrently. What is best for an individual project is not
always best for the enterprise and therefore it is necessary to implement coordination of concurrently run projects
with the objective of significantly increasing Enterprise Value.
There are two new key problems, which the 21st century brought to us.
The first is the rapidly increasing complexity of the Internet-based global market, which creates frequent
unpredictable disruptive events. This requires real-time adaptive project management, for which there is at present
no precedent.
The second is the replacement of capital with knowledge as the key business resource in the economy in which the
wealth created by knowledge services is greater than wealth created by producers of goods. There is at present no
management system capable of discovering, processing, storing and allocating knowledge to project tasks.
Purpose
The client for this case study was one of the key space technology organizations in Russia, their equivalent of
NASA, which operates, at any time, many concurrent mission critical projects.
The purpose of the project management system was to enable the client to effectively manage several related projects
(at least ten), collectively contributing to the specified Enterprise Value, with the following requirements:
• Each project may consist of up to 5,000 constituent tasks
• Project members may have different backgrounds and skills and may belong to diverse business cultures
• Project members must have an opportunity to contribute to decision making processes, which affects their domain
of work (distributed decision making)
• Both project management and project members must have readily available and up-to-date information on,
respectively, project and individual progress, productivity and achievements of goals
• The allocation of resources to tasks must consider 4 types of resources, namely, human, physical, financial and
knowledge
• Availability of resources for and constituent tasks of each project may change with short notice and these changes
must be rapidly incorporated into the system
• Projects will be subjected to frequent disruptive events such as non-arrival of expected orders, arrival of
unexpected orders, sudden and unforeseen emergence of external/internal competitors, cancellations, changes in
task specifications, delays, failures, no-shows, etc.
• Rules and regulations governing projects are likely to change rather frequently and any change in rules and
regulations must be incorporated immediately and easily into the relevant project management system
• Any discrepancy between project plans and reality in the field must be continuously monitored and rapidly
detected and reported
• Projects may cooperate and/or compete for resources in order to increase specified Enterprise Value
A thorough analysis of the client’s requirements led to the conclusion that it is necessary to develop a real-time,
complex adaptive project management system capable of cooperating and/or competing with other systems, with the
overarching goal to continuously increase specified Enterprise Value.
The new system would replace a number of stand-alone, manual or semi-automated project management systems
with inadequate monitoring of progress and productivity.
A thorough analysis of contemporary practices showed that such a transformation had never before been achieved.
To the best of the team’s knowledge, there were no real-time project management systems in existence anywhere in
the world.
Challenges
This particular undertaking had a number of challenges.
The most important challenge was the resistance to change by client’s managers. The new system with its progress
and productivity monitoring capabilities threatened to expose inefficiencies and was not universally welcomed. Two
approaches were planned to manage this challenge: the first was education of participants and the second, a proposal
for a new payment structure which related salaries to meeting of targets, as reported by the new system.
The scale of the proposed network of systems was an even more important challenge, especially because all projects
were mission critical. To manage this challenge, the plan was made to adopt an evolutionary development strategy.
The first step was planned to be a fully engineered prototype with a limited functionality, which would be extended
into the first project management system only after a complete acceptance by the client that the prototype was
capable of delivering its limited functionality as specified. The network of project management systems would be
grown step by step.
The multi-agent technology, which underpinned the system, was well understood by the team, and a methodology
for managing complexity (Rzevski and Skobelev, 2014) of the task was in place.
Overview
The complexity of client’s projects ruled out all conventional project management practices and systems. Instead, for
every project, the team designed a complex adaptive project management system, based on multi-agent technology,
capable of meeting client requirements.
The system consisted of the following major components (Rzevski and Skobelev, 2014):
1. Knowledge Base containing domain knowledge relevant to the client’s project management processes
2. Multi-agent Virtual World which models the Real World of projects and is capable of managing real-world
complexity
3. Interfaces between the Virtual and Real Worlds, which enable the Virtual World to, in-effect, manage the Real
World, with or without human intervention
Knowledge Base
Examples of Classes of Objects in the ontology are: Enterprise, Organizational Unit, Project, Task, Project Member
(Human Resource), Hardware (Physical) Resource, Document, Software Resource, Knowledge Resource and
Process.
Examples of attributes are, for Task: Content, Cost, Duration, Deadline and Preferences; and for Project Member:
Organizational Unit, Competences, Profile, Schedule, Current Task, Salary, Achievements and Preferences.
A fragment of enterprise ontology is shown below.
Figure. 1 A fragment of enterprise ontology.

This material is reproduced with permission of G.
Virtual World
Examples of agents that populate the Virtual World include:
• Task Agent, whose objective is to search for the best resources capable to meet its requirements
• Human Resource Agent, whose objective is to get the best possible task, which will keep the project participant
fully occupied, provide opportunities for bonuses and/or enable the participant to learn new skills or get new
experience
• Physical Resource Agent, whose objective is to maximize resource utilization
• Project Agent, whose objective is to maximize Project Value
• Enterprise Agent, whose objective is to maximize Enterprise Value
All decisions are made through agent negotiations, as exemplified by the following process:
Task Agents send messages to Human Resource Agents with required competences inviting them to contribute to
task fulfilments. Human Resource Agents that are available send their bids. Task Agents offer project participation
to those Agents that sent the best bids. Bids are subject to negotiations between affected agents.
A new Task Agent is created whenever a new task is formulated or a previously allocated task is modified. The new
Task Agent consults ontology to find out what its objectives are and how to achieve them, and proceeds to send
messages to selected Human Resource Agents inviting them to bid for project participation. It is very likely that this
invitation will result in re-scheduling, giving an opportunity to Human Resource Agents that were not fully satisfied
with their previous allocations to improve their positions. Remuneration, including bonuses, if any, is calculated on
the basis of project member participation and achieved results. Enterprise members may participate in several
projects.
The allocation of physical, software and knowledge resources is done in an analogous manner. Advanced methods
(Rzevski and Skobelev, 2014) have been employed to maximise effectiveness of agent negotiation, such as, virtual
microeconomics, agent satisfaction, agent proactivity, enterprise agents, swarm cooperation, etc.
Decisions on allocation of resources to project tasks are made using multiple criteria, for example, decreases in
completion time, increases in quality and reducing identified risks, as illustrated below.
Figure 2. Decisions on allocation of resources

to tasks are made using multiple criteria. This
material is reproduced with permission of G.
Connecting Virtual and Real Worlds

The project member dashboard is the key link between the system and the project member. The exchange of
information that could be conducted using the dashboard includes:
• Negotiations of task content, risks, deadlines and budgets
• Acceptance/rejection by the project member of offered project tasks
• Inputs by project members of unexpected disruptive events and comments during the project
• Reports by the system on the project member performance in carrying out accepted tasks
The system may decide to engage two or more available project members in competition with each other to secure an
agreement on the acceptable task performance.
The other key link between the virtual and real worlds is the project managers dashboard, which displays detailed
project performance data in the form of various diagrams and Gantt charts and allows the manager to examine or
modify decisions made autonomously by the system.
Lessons Learned
The first real-time complex adaptive project management system was commissioned and deployed by the client in
2014 achieving the following results:
• 10% to 15% increase in project member productivity;
• 3 to 4 times reduction in manpower required for project scheduling, monitoring and coordination;
• 2 to 3 times reduction of response time to unpredictable disruptive events;
• 15% to 30% increase in the number of projects completion on budget and in time;
• A significant increase in project member motivation;
• A possibility to increase the number of projects operating in parallel without increasing the number of employees.
References
Works Cited
Rzevski, G., Skobelev, P., “Managing Complexity” WIT Press, New Forest, Boston, 2014. ISBN
978-1-84564-936-4.
Primary References
Rzevski, G., Skobelev, P., “Managing Complexity” WIT Press, New Forest, Boston, 2014. ISBN
978-1-84564-936-4.
None.

How Lack of Information Sharing Jeopardized

the NASA/ESA Cassini/Huygens Mission to
Saturn
This article describes a deep space mission where more forthright information exchanges between teamed but rival
agencies could have both preserved the original plan and saved much time and money. The topic may be of
particular interest to those involved in institutional collaborations where there are vested interests in protecting rather
than sharing information.
For additional information, refer to the closely related topics of Information Management, Organizing Business and
Enterprises to Perform Systems Engineering and Fundamentals of Services.
Background
Before the “Faster, Better, Cheaper” philosophy introduced in the 1990s, the United States National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) focused on three classes of unmanned space missions. In order of increasing cost,
these were the Discovery, New Frontiers, and Flagship programs. Flagship programs typically cost more than $1B,
and included the Voyager (outer planets), Galileo (Jupiter), Cassini-Huygens (Saturn), Mars Science Laboratory
(Mars), and the James Webb Space Telescope. (Wall 2012)
The concept of the Cassini-Huygens mission was initiated in 1982 as the result of a working group formed by the
National Academy of Sciences and the European Science Foundation. This group sought opportunities for joint
space missions; several subsequent reports endorsed the working group’s concept of a Saturn orbiter coupled with a
Titan (Saturn’s largest moon) lander. (Russell 2003, p. 61.)
By 1988, NASA was politically motivated to reverse earlier tensions with the European Space Agency (ESA) by
engaging in a joint mission. Cassini-Huygens was seen as a mechanism to achieve this goal, and the cooperation
between NASA and ESA helped the program survive potential budget cuts (since the U.S. was obligated to match
ESA commitments). (Russell 2003, p. 62.)
How Lack of Information Sharing Jeopardized the NASA/ESA Cassini/Huygens Mission to Saturn 1129
NASA and ESA approved the Cassini-Huygens program, and it proceeded under a traditional management approach.
NASA built the Cassini orbiter (the largest and most complex unmanned space probe ever built) and the ESA
constructed the Huygens lander. This partition of responsibility almost led to the failure of the Titan survey portion
of the mission. Cassini (which would conduct a variety of scientific surveys of the Saturn planetary system) was
expected to relay transmissions from Huygens to NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN); however, the interface
between the lander and orbiter was not well-managed and erroneous assumptions about how the orbiter/lander
system would behave after separation nearly doomed the Titan exploration portion of the mission. (Oberg 2004.)
Purpose
The intent of the Titan survey portion of the Cassini-Huygens mission was that the Huygens lander would separate
from the Cassini orbiter and commence a one-way, 2.5 hour descent into Titan’s atmosphere. Its modest transmitter
would send data back to the orbiter, which would relay the information to Earth. (Oberg 2004, p. 30.) This
effectively made the radio link between the two spacecraft a poorly-characterized single point of failure (SPOF).
Alenia Spazio SpA, the Italian communications vendor that built the radio system, overlooked the Doppler shift
(approximately 38 kHz) (Oberg, 2004, p. 31) that would occur when Huygens separated from Cassini and began its
descent (Oberg 2004, p. 38). The communications protocol was binary phase-key shifting: “[the] transmission system
represents 1s and 0s by varying the phase of the outgoing carrier wave. Recovering these bits requires precise timing:
in simple terms, Cassini’s receiver is designed to break the incoming signal into 8192 chunks every second. It
determines the phase of each chunk compared with an unmodulated wave and outputs a 0 or a 1 accordingly”.
(Oberg 2004, p. 31.) The receiver was appropriately configured to compensate for the Doppler shift of the carrier
wave but would be unable to adjust for the Doppler shift of the encoded data. “In effect, the shift would push the
signal out of synch with the timing scheme used to recover data from the phase-modulated carrier.” (Oberg 2004, p.
33) Therefore, the communications system would be unable to decode the data from the lander and would then relay
scrambled information to NASA. Because of the failure mechanism involved, the data would be completely
unrecoverable.
Both Cassini and Huygens had been tested before launch; however, none of the testing accurately reflected the
Doppler shift that would be experienced at this critical phase of the mission. An opportunity to conduct a full-scale,
high-fidelity radio test was ignored due to budget constraints; the testing would have required disassembly and
subsequent recertification of the probes. (Oberg, 2004, p. 30.) Correcting this latent issue via a minor firmware
upgrade would have been trivial before the spacecraft were launched (Oberg 2004, p. 33) once they were on the way
to Saturn any corrective action would be severely limited and expensive.
Once the mission was underway, the probe coasted along its seven-year trajectory to Saturn and its moons. Claudio
Sollazzo, the ESA ground operations manager, was uncomfortable with the untested communications system. He
tasked Boris Smeds, an engineer with radio and telemetry experience, with finding a way to test the communications
system using an Earth-generated signal. (Oberg 2004, p. 30.)
Smeds spent six months developing the test protocols that would use Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) ground
stations and an exact duplicate of Huygens. Simulated telemetry would be broadcast from Earth to Cassini and
relayed back; the test signal would vary in power level and Doppler shift to fully exercise the communications link
and accurately reflect the anticipated parameters during Huygens’s descent into Titan’s atmosphere. (ESA 2005)
Challenges
Smeds faced opposition to his test plans from those who felt it was unnecessary, but ultimately prevailed due to
support from Sollazzo and Jean-Pierre Lebreton, the Huygens project scientist. More than two years after the mission
was launched, Smeds traveled to a DSN site in California to conduct the test. (Oberg 2004, p. 31)
A test signal was broadcast, received by Cassini, re-transmitted to the DSN site, and relayed to ESA's European
Space Operation Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt, Germany for analysis. Testing had to be conducted when the orbiter
was in the correct relative position in the sky; it was more than a quarter of a million miles away with a signal
round-trip time of nearly an hour. The test immediately exposed an issue; the data stream was intermittently
corrupted, with failures not correlated to the power level of the test signal. The first of two days of testing concluded
with no clear root cause identified. (Oberg 2004, p. 31.)
Even though the probe was far from its ultimate destination, many science teams were competing for time to
communicate with it using the limited bandwidth available. The communications team would not be able to conduct
another set of trials for several months. Smeds diagnosed the root cause of the problem; he felt it was the Doppler
shifts induced in the simulated signal. However, the test plan did not include unshifted telemetry (an ironic
oversight). He modified his test plan overnight and shortened the planned tests by 60%; this recovered sufficient
time for him to inject an unshifted signal into the test protocols. (Oberg 2004, p. 32)
This unshifted signal did not suffer from the same degradation; however, other engineers resisted the diagnosis of the
problem. Follow-up testing using probe mockups and other equipment ultimately convinced the ESA of the issue;
this took an additional seven months. (Oberg 2004, p. 33.)
By late 2000, ESA informed NASA of the latent failure of the communications link between Cassini and Huygens.
Inquiry boards confirmed that Alenia Spazio had reused timing features of a communications system used on
Earth-orbiting satellites (which did not have to compensate for Doppler shifts of this magnitude). (Oberg, 2004, p.
33.) In addition, because NASA was considered a competitor, full specifications for the communications modules
were not shared with JPL. The implementation of the communications protocols was in the system’s firmware; trivial
to correct before launch, impossible to correct after. (ESA 2005.)
A 40-man Huygens Recovery Task Force (HRTF) was created in early 2001 to investigate potential mitigation
actions. Analysis showed that no amount of modification to the signal would prevent degradation; the team
ultimately proposed changing the trajectory of Cassini to reduce the Doppler shift. (ESA 2005) Multiple studies were
conducted to verify the efficacy of this remedy, and it ultimately allowed the mission to successfully complete the
Titan survey.

Space missions are particularly challenging; once the spacecraft is en route to its destination, it is completely
isolated. No additional resources can be provided and repair (particularly for unmanned missions) can be impossible.
Apollo 13’s crew managed to barely survive the notable mishap on its mission because of the resources of the docked
Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) and the resourcefulness of the ground control team’s experts. A less well-known
failure occurred during the Galileo mission to Jupiter. After the Challenger disaster, NASA adopted safety standards
that restricted the size of boosters carried in the Space Shuttle. (Renzetti 1995.) Galileo was delayed while the
Shuttles were grounded and Galileo’s trajectory was re-planned to include a Venus fly-by to accelerate and
compensate for a smaller booster. Galileo’s main antenna failed to deploy; lubricant had evaporated during the
extended unplanned storage (Evans 2003) and limited computer space led to the deletion of the antenna
motor-reversing software to make room for thermal protection routines. When the antenna partially deployed, it was
stuck in place with no way to re-furl and redeploy it. Engineers ultimately used an onboard tape recorder, revised
transmission protocols, the available low-gain antenna, and ground-based upgrades to the DSN to save the mission.
(Taylor, Cheung, and Seo 2002.)
The Titan survey was ultimately successful because simulation techniques were able to verify the planned trajectory
modifications and sufficient reaction mass was available to complete the necessary maneuvers. In addition, Smeds’s
analysis gave the mission team the time it needed to fully diagnose the problem and develop and implement the
remedy. If this test were conducted the day before the survey, it would merely have given NASA and ESA advance
warning of a disaster. The time provided enabled the mission planners to craft a trajectory that resolved the
communication issue and then blended back into the original mission profile to preserve the balance of the Saturn
fly-bys planned for Cassini. (Oberg 2004, p. 33.)
Lessons Learned
The near-failure of the Cassini-Huygens survey of Titan was averted because a handful of dedicated systems
engineers fought for and conducted relevant testing, exposed a latent defect, and did so early enough in the mission
to allow for a recovery plan to be developed and executed. Root causes of the issue included politically-driven
partitioning, poor interface management, overlooked contextual information, and a lack of appreciation for
single-points-of-failure (SPOFs).
The desire to use a joint space mission as a mechanism for bringing NASA and ESA closer together (with the
associated positive impact in foreign relations) introduced an unnecessary interface into the system. Interfaces must
always be managed carefully; interfaces between organizations (particularly those that cross organizational or
political borders) require extra effort and attention. Boeing and Airbus experienced similar issues during the
development of the Boeing 787 and A380; international interfaces in the design activities and supply chains led to
issues:
…every interface in nature has a surface energy. Creating a new surface (e.g., by cutting a block of
steel into two pieces) consumes energy that is then bound up in that surface (or interface). Interfaces in
human systems (or organizations), a critical aspect of complex systems such as these, also have costs in
the effort to create and maintain them. Second, friction reduces performance. Carl von Clausewitz, the
noted military strategist, defined friction as the disparity between the ideal performance of units,
organizations, or systems, and their actual performance in real-world scenarios. One of the primary
causes of friction is ambiguous or unclear information. Partitioning any system introduces friction at
the interface. (Vinarcik 2014, p. 697)
Alenia Spazio SpA’s unclear understanding of the Doppler shift introduced by the planned relative trajectories of
Huygens and Cassini during the Titan survey led it to reuse a component from Earth-orbiting satellites. Because it
considered NASA a competitor and cloaked details of the communications system behind a veil of propriety, it
prevented detection of this flaw in the design phase. (Oberg 2004, p. 33)
Because NASA and ESA did not identify this communication link as a critical SPOF, they both sacrificed pre-launch
testing on the altar of expediency and cost-savings. This prevented detection and correction of the flaw before the
mission was dispatched to Saturn. The resource cost of the later analysis and remedial action was non-trivial and if
sufficient time and reaction mass had not been available the mission would have been compromised. It should be
noted that a number of recent spacecraft failures are directly attributable to SPOFs (notably, the Mars Polar Lander
(JPL 2000) and the Genesis sample return mission (GENESIS, 2005)). Effective SPOF detection and remediation
must be a priority for any product development effort. More generally, early in the development process, significant
emphasis should be placed on analyses focused on what might go wrong (“rainy day scenarios”) in addition to what
is expected to go right (“sunny day scenarios”).
The success of the Huygens survey of Titan was built upon the foundation established by Boris Smeds by identifying
the root cause of the design flaws in a critical communications link. This case study underscores the need for clear
contextual understanding, robust interface management, representative testing, and proper characterization and
management of SPOFs.
References
Works Cited
Evans, B. 2003. "The Galileo Trials." Spaceflight Now. Available: http:/ / www. spaceflightnow. com/ galileo/
030921galileohistory.html.
GENESIS. 2005. "GENESIS Mishap Investigation Board Report Volume I." Washington, DC, USA: National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
JPL. 2000. "Report on the Loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 Missions." Special Review Board.
Pasadena, CA, USA: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
ESA. 2005. "Modest Hero Sparks Team Response." European Space Agency. Available: http:/ / www. esa. int/
Our_Activities/Operations/Modest_hero_sparks_team_response.
Oberg, J. 2004. "Titan Calling: How a Swedish engineer saved a once-in-a-lifetime mission to Saturn's mysterious
moon." IEEE Spectrum. 1 October 2004, pp. 28-33.
Renzetti, D.N. 1995. "Advanced Systems Program and the Galileo Mission to Jupiter." The Evolution of Technology
in the Deep Space Network: A History of the Advanced Systems Program. Available: http:/ / deepspace. jpl. nasa.
gov/technology/95_20/gll_case_study.html.
Russell, C. 2003. The Cassini-Huygens Mission: Volume 1: Overview, Objectives and Huygens Instrumentarium.
Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Taylor, J., K.-M. Cheung, and D. Seo. 2002. "Galileo Telecommunications. Article 5." DESCANSO Design and
Performance Summary Series. Pasadena, CA, USA: NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Vinarcik, M.J. 2014. "Airbus A380 and Boeing 787 — Contrast of Competing Architectures for Air Transportation,"
in Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering, edited by A. Gorod et
al. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press. p. 687-701.
Wall, M. 2012. "NASA Shelves Ambitious Flagship Missions to Other Planets." Space News. Available: http:/ /
www.space.com/14576-nasa-planetary-science-flagship-missions.html.
Primary References
None.
None.

Hubble Space Telescope

Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Alice Squires, Richard Freeman, Contributing Authors: Brian White
This article describes a remarkable engineering feat with vast scientific benefits and implications. The topic may be
of particular interest to those facing formidable systems engineering challenges where one might thrive on a
thoughtful blend of humility and optimism. For additional information, refer to the links provided in Section V:
Lessons Learned below.
Background
The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Case Study was developed by the United States Air Force Center for Systems
Engineering (AF CSE) located at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). The AF CSE was tasked to develop
case studies focusing on the application of systems engineering principle s within various aerospace program s. The
HST study (Mattice 2005) is one of four initial case studies selected by AFIT for development in support of systems
engineering graduate school instruction. The cases are structured using the Friedman-Sage framework (Friedman and
Sage 2003; Friedman and Sage 2004, 84-96), which decomposes a case into contractor, government, and shared
responsibilities in the following nine concept areas: STOPPED HERE
5. Risk Management
The case study provides a useful example of the rising cost of defect correction through successive life cycle phases,
demonstrating how an error (in test fixture specification) that could have been fixed for $1,000 at the design stage, or
detected and fixed with a $10 million investment in an end-to-end test of the telescope on the ground, ended up
costing $1 billion to fix when the system was in service.
Purpose
The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is an orbiting astronomical observatory operating in the spectrum from the
near-infrared into the ultraviolet. Launched in 1990 and still operational, HST carries and has carried a wide variety
of instruments producing imaging, spectrographic, astrometric, and photometric data through both pointed and
parallel observing programs. Over 100,000 observations of more than 20,000 targets have been produced for
retrieval. The telescope is well known as a marvel of science. This case study hopes to represent the facet of the HST
that is a marvel of systems engineering, which, in fact, generated the scientific research and observation capabilities
now appreciated worldwide.
Viewed with the clarity that only time and hindsight provide, the HST program certainly represents one of the most
successful modern human endeavors on any scale of international scope and complex ity. As a systems engineering
project the HST had to respond to requirement s from the diverse international scientific community at a time when
NASA was implementing a different research-development-acquisition philosophy and process than what was
predominately being used in most major government acquisition programs. As with most other large programs,
powerful influences outside the systems engineering process itself became issues that HST systems engineer s in
effect had to acknowledge as integral to their overall system/program/engineering management responsibility.
Challenges
The story of how this remarkable capability came to be is a story of the complicated interactions of a systems
engineering process, which we like to believe we understand, with equally demanding political, budgetary, and
institutional processes we often fail to understand or comprehend at the time they occur. In the final analysis, these
processes are inseparable and integral to attaining program success. The challenge to modern systems engineers is to
fully embrace the discipline of the systems engineering process while at the same time learning how to continue to
practice it in spite of inevitable external influences and instabilities that often cannot be anticipated.
Major differences revolved around the nature and needs of a very different HST “customer” or user from most DoD
systems. The HST had to respond to requirements from the diverse international scientific community instead of
from DoD’s combatant commands. In addition, at the time, NASA implemented a different
research-development-acquisition philosophy and process than the DoD Acquisition Management Framework
described in the DoD 5000 series acquisition reforms. As with most other large programs, powerful influences
outside the systems engineering process itself became issues that HST systems engineers in effect had to
acknowledge as integral to their overall system/program/engineering management responsibility.

During the critical systems engineering phase for the HST program (1970s concept studies thru 1990 launch) there
appears to have been no NASA systems engineering master process. Rather, field center processes were operative
and possibly even in competition, as centers (especially Marshall and Goddard for HST) were in keen competition
for lead management roles and responsibilities. We will see the systems engineering and program management
impacts of this competition as it played out for HST, with the science mission objectives and instrumentation
payloads being the motivation for Goddard vs. the vehicle/payload access to space motivation of Marshall. In the
final analysis, the roles of the major contractors in engineering the system with uneven NASA participation over the
system life cycle had a telling effect.
Lessons Learned
Five learning principles (LPs) were derived that address the more broadly applicable areas of systems engineering
knowledge. These five LPs inform the areas of the SEBoK that are most strongly related to the case study. The five
areas are:
• stakeholder requirements definition (LP1);
• planning (pre-program trade studies) (LP2);
• system integration (LP3);
• life cycle model management (LP4); and
• risk management (LP5).
A synopsis of the HST Learning Principles (LPs) are as follows:
Stakeholder Requirements Definition LP1: Early and full participation by the customer/user throughout the
program is essential to success. In the early stages of the HST program, the mechanism for involving the customer
was not well defined. The user community was initially polarized and not effectively engaged in program definition
and advocacy. This eventually changed for the better, albeit driven heavily by external political and related national
program initiatives. Ultimately, institutionalization of the user’s process for involvement ensured powerful
representation and a fundamental stake and role in both establishing and managing program requirements. Over time,
the effectiveness of “The Institute” led to equally effective user involvement in the deployment and on-orbit
operations of the system as well.
Planning LP 2: The use of Pre-Program Trade Studies (e.g. “Phased Studies” or “Phased Project Planning”) to
broadly explore technical concepts and alternatives is essential and provides for a healthy variety of inputs from a
variety of contractors and government (NASA) centers. These activities cover a range of feasibility, conceptual,
alternative and preliminary design trades, with cost initially a minor (later a major) factor. In the case of HST,
several NASA Headquarters and Center organizations funded these studies and sponsored technical workshops for
HST concepts. This approach can promote healthy or unhealthy competition, especially when roles and
responsibilities within and between the participating management centers have not yet been decided and competing
external organizations use these studies to further both technical and political agendas. NASA Center roles and
missions can also be at stake depending on political and or budgetary realities. The systems engineering challenge at
this stage is to “keep it technical, stupid!”
Systems Integration LP 3: A high degree of systems integration to assemble, test, deploy, and operate the system is
essential to success and must be identified as a fundamental program resource need as part of the program baseline.
For HST, the early wedding of the program to the Shuttle, prior NASA and NASA contractor experience with
similarly complex programs, such as Apollo, and the early requirement for manned, on-orbit servicing made it hard
not to recognize this was a big systems engineering integration challenge. Nonetheless, collaboration between
government engineers, contractor engineers, as well as customers, must be well defined and exercised early on to
overcome inevitable integration challenges and unforeseen events.
Life Cycle Models LP 4: Life Cycle Support planning and execution must be integral from day one, including
concept and design phases. The results will speak for themselves. Programs structured with real life cycle
performance as a design driver will be capable of performing in-service better, and will be capable of dealing with
unforeseen events (even usage in unanticipated missions). HST probably represents a benchmark for building in
system sustainment (reliability, maintainability, provision for technology upgrade, built-in redundancy, etc.), while
providing for human execution of functions (planned and unplanned) critical to servicing missions. With four
successful service missions complete, including one initially not planned (the primary mirror repair), the benefits of
design-for-sustainment, or life cycle support, throughout all phases of the program become quite evident. Without
this design approach, it is unlikely that the unanticipated, unplanned mirror repair could even have been attempted,
let alone been totally successful.
Risk Management LP 5: For complex programs, the number of stakeholders (government and contractor) demands
that the program be structured to cope with high risk factors in many management and technical areas
simultaneously. The HST program relied heavily on the contractors (especially Lockheed Missiles and Space
Company (LMSC) and Perkin-Elmer (P-E)), each of which “owned” very significant and unique program risk areas.
In the critical area of optical systems, NASA depended on LMSC as the overall integrator to manage risk in an area
where P-E was clearly the technical expert. Accordingly, NASA relied on LMSC and LMSC relied on P-E with
insufficient checks, oversight, and independence of the quality assurance function throughout. While most other risk
areas were no doubt managed effectively, lapses here led directly to the HST’s going to orbit with the primary mirror
defect undetected, in spite of substantial evidence that could have been used to prevent this.
References
Works Cited
Friedman, G.R. and A.P. Sage. 2003. Systems Engineering Concepts: Illustration Through Case Studies. Accessed
September 2011. Available at: http://www.afit.edu/cse/docs/Friedman-Sage%20Framework.pdf.
Friedman, G. and A. Sage. 2004. “Case Studies of Systems Engineering and Management in Systems Acquisition.”
Mattice, J. “Hubble Space Telescope Case Study." Ft. Belvoir, VA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU). Last
modified May 2, 2005. Accessed November 27, 2012. Available at https:/ / acc. dau. mil/ adl/ en-US/ 37600/ file/
9105/Hubble%20Space%20Telescope%20SE%20Case%20Study%20-%20JJ%20Mattice.pdf.
Primary References
None.
None.

Applying a Model-Based Approach to Support

Requirements Analysis on the Thirty-Meter
Telescope
This article describes how a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach was used to support requirements
analysis, system design, and early verification for critical subsystems of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) [8]. The
MBSE approach applied the Executable Systems Engineering Method (ESEM) [4] [5] and the Open-source
Engineering Environment (OpenMBEE) [7] to specify, analyze, and verify requirements of TMT’s Alignment and
Phasing System (APS) and the Narrow Field Infrared Adaptive Optics System (NFIRAOS). The value proposition
for applying this MBSE approach was to establish precise requirements and fine-grained traceability to system
designs, and to verify key requirements using executable SysML [6] models beginning early in development.
Background
The TMT (Figure 1) is a next-generation ground-based extremely large telescope designed to answer key science
questions regarding the nature and composition of the Universe. At its core is a wide-field, altitude-azimuth
Ritchey-Chrétien design with a 492 segment, 30-meter diameter primary mirror (M1), a fully active secondary
mirror, and an articulated tertiary mirror. Each segment’s optical performance is sensitive to three rigid body degrees
of freedom: piston, tip, and tilt. To obtain optimal image quality, the segmented M1 must perform like a single
monolithic mirror, achieved through a multitude of controls working to co-align, co-focus, and co-phase its
segments. The APS (Figure 2) is responsible for the overall pre-adaptive optics wavefront quality, using starlight to
measure wavefront errors and align the TMT optics. Adaptive optics systems like the NFIRAOS (Figure 2) are
designed to sense real-time atmospheric turbulence and correct the telescope’s optical beam to remove its effect,
enabling diffraction-limited imaging on the ground. In LGS MCAO and NGSAO modes, this is achieved through the
Applying a Model-Based Approach to Support Requirements Analysis on the Thirty-Meter Telescope 1137
use of wavefront sensors to detect laser and natural guide stars and deformable mirrors to direct the corrected
wavefront to science instruments. These opto-mechanical designs and complex controls are constrained by several
requirements that must be satisfied.
Figure 1. Thirty Meter Telescope. (Used with

permission. Permission granted by Jamie
Nakawatase.)
Figure 2. APS and NFIRAOS early light

locations. (Used with permission. Permission
granted by Jamie Nakawatase.)
TMT International Observatory (TIO), LLC is a non-profit organization of international members, responsible for
managing the design, development, and operations of the TMT. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) [9] participates
in the design and development of several TMT subsystems and delivers an operational APS, where TIO is
responsible for providing requirements to JPL. The APS team applies an MBSE approach to analyze requirements,
derive an architecture design, and implement a system. TIO also works with JPL to analyze the operational behavior
of NFIRAOS through modeling system-level operational scenarios (such as slew, acquisition, and dithering) with
Monte-Carlo simulations. Modeling patterns are used to capture functional and physical system characteristics,
behavior, requirements, parametric relationships, and use case scenarios. MBSE applications are motivated by
optimization to better understand TMT’s complex system behaviors.
Purpose
This article describes how MBSE is applied to the development of critical subsystems of a complex interdisciplinary
system and the benefits of this approach. While document-based artifacts are necessary throughout the development
lifecycle, complex systems engineering relies significantly on the use of models to address concerns from various
domains (e.g. mechanics, optics, controls) (Figure 3). MBSE helps to manage implicit dependencies on information
contained in these cross-domain documents, understand change impacts, analyze designs, and communicate evolving
technical baselines. Models act as the single source of authority for systems engineering information that enables
optimization through consistent and automated data exchange, enhanced analyses, and consolidating subsystem
design information into separate artifacts needed by various stakeholders.
Figure 3. Landscape of Engineering Models. (Used with permission. Permission granted by Jamie Nakawatase.)
MBSE Challenges
Systems engineering (SE) is inherently challenging with concepts spanning several engineering disciplines.
Expressing these concepts in a model demands the use of flexible methodology, language, and tools. The modeler
must understand how to leverage this flexibility to rigorously specify systems with a broad range of complex design
considerations. This poses the initial MBSE challenge—the learning curve. However, this challenge is native to any
new undertaking and is overcome by hands-on experience, training, and ever-growing resources.
Another challenge is determining how to apply MBSE to meet the needs of a project. MBSE is not separate from
SE—it is an approach to achieve the fundamental goals of SE more efficiently. MBSE should not be used to
duplicate work, but instead replace efforts that can be better accomplished formally through modeling.
Engineers live in a landscape of variability among tools and information models in different domains (e.g. ALM,
PLM, CAD), which are often implicitly connected [4]. To benefit from a model-based paradigm, the models require
explicit connections. A key challenge is how to leverage data and associated models to enable cross-domain
integration.
Finally, standardization is a challenge for MBSE. A model is only effective if stakeholders can understand it.
SysML is an evolving modeling language that is becoming the dominant standard to communicate system
architectures, independent of the modeling tools that use it. However, SysML is only one of many standards that
must be applied to ensure the models can be consistently interpreted by tools and users.
MBSE Approach
The MBSE approach follows the conventional SE V-process enriched by a model-based paradigm (Figure 4). The
scope of this MBSE application addresses models at L2 and L3, and requirements flow-down to L4, although the
approach can be applied to support specification and architecture design at other levels as well. Associated modeling
artifacts are created early and maintained throughout the development lifecycle.
Figure 4. JPL Model-based V Process. (Used with permission. Permission granted by Jamie Nakawatase.)
MBSE articulates the system architecture in a formal, executable model that captures structure, behavior,
requirements, and parametric relationships of system elements. Operational scenarios are defined in the model and
analyzed through system-level simulation to verify requirements and validate overall system design over an expected
range of conditions and parameters. The system model is also the authoritative source for several engineering
documents. The MBSE approach is subsequently described by its methodology, tooling infrastructure, and analysis
processes.
Methodology
The Executable Systems Engineering Method (ESEM) [1] is used to formalize requirements, specify system designs,
characterize components, and specify/run analyses. ESEM augments the Object Oriented Systems Engineering
Method (OOSEM) [2] by enabling executable models that enhance understanding, precision, and verification of
requirements through applying analysis patterns specified with various SysML diagrams. ESEM also enables
integration of supplier/customer models.
Figure 5 shows the major activities common to SE processes using OOSEM. The red circles indicate where ESEM
injects formal modeling methods.
Figure 5. OOSEM activities. (Used with permission. Permission granted by Jamie Nakawatase.) [8]
ESEM is utilized to model different levels of abstraction that are analyzed using several modeling patterns as
detailed in [4]. The system-of-interest is modeled as a black box that interacts with external subsystems, such as
controls. Interactions are modeled using ports to identify operations and flows at the system-of-interest interface.
The conceptual model specifies technology-independent system components and captures their behavior. This part of
the model is used to analyze characteristics such as duration of operational scenarios. Component behavior is
captured using state machines and activity diagrams, and constraint parameters are captured in a table.
Communication across internal and external system components is accomplished through the sending and receiving
of signals through ports. This model supports production of interface control documents by querying information
sent from one component to another over ports.
The conceptual model serves as a basis to specify the realization model of the physical components. The realization
model imposes technology-dependent constraints on the design solutions. Both the conceptual (i.e. logical) and
realization (i.e. physical) models represent the “as-specified” system.
Tooling
The MBSE approach uses standard SysML language and modeling tools to minimize custom software. The
OpenMBEE community promotes an open tooling environment that provides a platform for modeling. It utilizes the
Model Management System (MMS) that can be accessed from rich SysML desktop clients like MagicDraw,
lightweight web-based clients like View Editor, computational programs like Mathematica, and other tools that
utilize RESTful web services. The MMS also provides the basic infrastructure for search, relation management,
versioning, workflow, access control, content flexibility, web applications support, web-based API access, and
multi-tool/repository integration across engineering and management disciplines.
Figure 6 shows the integration of model artifacts produced by MMS, View Editor, and MagicDraw. System models
are constructed, queried, and rendered following the view and viewpoint paradigm [3] from MMS.
Figure 6. OpenMBEE interactions. (Used with permission. Permission granted by Jamie Nakawatase.)
Analysis
One key SE process is to analyze the impact of changing requirements on the system design. Figure 7 illustrates how
the MBSE approach is used to support requirements impact analysis through the following steps:
• Step 1: A changed requirement triggers impact analysis.
• Step 2: MMS integrates DOORS (which manages text requirements) and the SysML model, enabling a DOORS
requirement change to propagate to the SysML model.
• Step 3: A property-based requirement is formalized in SysML, enabling requirements specification that can be
evaluated by engineering analysis.
• Steps 4-6: The conceptual and/or realization design is automatically verified against the changed requirement,
resulting in pass or fail.
Figure 7. Propagation of a changed requirement. (Used with permission. Permission granted by Jamie Nakawatase.)
In this article, a simplified APS model is shown to illustrate the model-based approach for analyzing changed
requirements. The full analysis is available in [4] and [5].
A model-based approach was also applied to APS for error analysis, which was performed to describe the accuracy
of expected system performance against requirements. It involved multiple artifacts to analyze a requirement such as
“APS shall measure the position of the telescope pupil to an accuracy of 0.03% of the diameter of the pupil.”
Defining requirements and parameters in the model indicated the required accuracy and current best estimates of the
system design. Defining various roll-up patterns allowed for error decomposition calculations. The benefit is realized
in automated requirements verification when applying a parametric solver to formulate results for specified
equations in the model. This model-based approach formally integrates accuracy requirements with the system
design.
The system model for NFIRAOS LGS MCAO and NGSAO modes was developed to capture sequence behaviors
and operational scenarios to run Monte-Carlo simulations for verifying acquisition time, observing efficiency, and
operational behavior requirements. The model is particularly useful for investigating the effect of parallelization,
identifying interface issues, and re-ordering sequence acquisition tasks.
ESEM enables system analysis by conducting quantitative assessments to select and/or update the most efficient
system architecture and generate derived engineering data. System analysis provides rigor for technical
decision-making. It includes modeling and simulation, cost, technical risks, and effectiveness analyses, and is used to
perform trade studies. In particular, it supports requirements verification, which assesses whether a system design
meets its objectives and satisfies the constraints levied by system requirements.
Observed Benefits
The MBSE approach applied to APS and NFIRAOS was motivated by optimization to coordinate the efforts of
complex system development. In these applications, implicit dependencies are made explicit in a formal model
through the use of ESEM, OpenMBEE, and SysML modeling constructs. Requirements are formalized and tracked
directly to the evolving system design. This tight association of requirements within a common environment
promotes cross-domain integration and efficient communication among stakeholders. The model is used to automate
requirements verification and to generate systems engineering products. The benefit over a traditional
document-based approach is that currently disconnected artifacts become related in the model, enabling the
production of consistent model-based documentation. Requirements verification is an important analysis conducted
in the context of MBSE. To perform this analysis, the requirements, executable behavior, and models predicting the
system’s performance must be integrated. The ability to integrate these elements using ESEM and the OpenMBEE
tooling infrastructure is a significant value proposition for the MBSE approach described in this article. In the
formally integrated and executable SysML model, simulations are performed to analyze the impact of changed
requirements and verify that requirements are met within specified constraints for various operational scenarios.
MBSE enhances information exchange through created visualizations that communicate system behavior. For
example, duration analyses were performed to study acquisition time for observing. The use of Monte-Carlo
simulations proved how the model-based approach optimized the analysis process. Higher quality analysis results
were obtained through the execution of operational scenario runs in an articulated system model, and the model
continues to serve as a communication tool across various domains.
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), California Institute of Technology, under a
contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and at NoMagic. The TMT Project
gratefully acknowledges the support of the TMT collaborating institutions. They are the California Institute of
Technology, the University of California, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, the National
Astronomical Observatories of China and their consortium partners, the Department of Science and Technology of
India and their supported institutes, and the National Research Council of Canada. This work was supported as well
by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Ontario Ministry of
Research and Innovation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the British Columbia
Knowledge Development Fund, the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy (ACURA), the
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), the U.S. National Science Foundation, the National
Institutes of Natural Sciences of Japan, and the Department of Atomic Energy of India.
References
Works Cited
[1] Zwemer, D., “Connecting SysML with PLM/ALM, CAD, Simulation, Requirements, and Project Management
Tools”, Intercax LLC, May 2011. [2] Friedenthal S, Moore A., and Steiner R., “A Practical Guide to SysML 3rd Ed.”,
Morgan Kaufmann OMG Press, 2014 [3] ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering -
Architecture description
Primary References
[4] Karban, R., Jankevičius, N., Elaasar, M. “ESEM: Automated Systems Analysis using Executable SysML
Modeling Patterns”, INCOSE International Symposium (IS), Edinburgh, Scotland, 2016 [5] Karban, R. “Using
Executable SysML Models to Generate System Engineering Products”, NoMagic World Symposium, 2016 [6] OMG
SysML, “Systems Modeling Language (SysML) Version 1.4”, OMG, 2014 [7] Open Source Engineering
Environment: https:/ / open-mbee. github. io/ [8] TMT, “Thirty Meter Telescope.” http:/ / www. tmt. org [9] JPL, “Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.” https:/ / www. jpl. nasa. gov/ [10] Karban R., Dekens F., Herzig S., Elaasar M, Jankevičius
N., “Creating systems engineering products with executable models in a model-based engineering environment”,
SPIE, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2016
https:/ / github. com/ Open-MBEE/ TMT-SysML-Model https:/ / github. com/ Open-MBEE/ mdk/ tree/ support/ 2.
5/ manual http:/ / www. omgwiki. org/ MBSE/ doku. php?id=mbse:telescope https:/ / groups. google. com/ forum/
#!forum/openmbee

Miniature Seeker Technology Integration

Spacecraft
Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Art Pyster, Deva Henry, Contributing Authors: Dave Olwell
The Miniature Seeker Technology Integration (MSTI) spacecraft was the first of its kind: a rapid development
spacecraft, designed and launched in one year. As an aerospace example for a satellite application, the case study,
"M.S.T.I.: Optimizing the Whole System" (Grenville, Kleiner, and Newcomb 2004), describes the project's systems
engineering approach. Driven by an aggressive schedule, MSTI optimized over the whole project, rather than
allowing sub-optimizations at the component level. As a partnership with Phillips Laboratories, the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL), and Spectrum Astro, MSTI went into orbit on November 21, 1992. The MSTI-1 succeeded in
meeting all primary mission objectives, surpassing the 6-day data collection mission requirement.
Domain Background
There are many case study examples for aerospace systems. This case is of particular interest because it highlights
mechanisms which enabled successful performance following an aggressive schedule. Since this rapid development
spacecraft was designed and launched in one year, new ways of structuring the project were necessary. Within this
domain, the MSTI project used an innovative approach. Practices from this project led to the Mission Design Center
and the System Test Bed at JPL.

This case study was developed in support of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Program
and Project Management Initiative by authors at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and
Scientific Management, Inc. The case study was developed in the interest of continuously improving program and
project management at NASA (NASA 2010). Research for this case included comprehensive literature review and
detailed interviews. The project was selected based on the potential for providing lessons learned.

The MSTI case study illustrates many principles described in the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge
(SEBoK). The MSTI team had to make adjustments to the traditional approach to spacecraft development in order to
stay within budget and to meet the aggressive timeline of bringing a spacecraft from conception to launch within one
year. The team realized that they were "building Porsches not Formula 1s"(Grenville, Kleiner, Newcomb 2004).
Meeting the schedule was a crucial factor that affected all decisions. The SEBoK knowledge area on life cycle
models describes life cycle design in more detail.
The team took advantage of existing hardware architectures for their architectural design to expedite the project. In
addition, at each design phase, the whole system was optimized instead of optimizing subsystems, and the level of
optimization at the subsystem level was reduced. A hardware-in-the-loop test bed was used throughout the project,
which expedited system integration.
The schedule was maintained only at a high level in the project management office, and the costs were managed
using a cost reporting technique for "cost to completion." Rather than report on past spending, the Responsible
Engineering Authorities (REAs) were expected to continually evaluate their ability to complete their tasks within
projected costs. Faster procurement was achieved using the Hardware Acquisition Team, where a technical team
member was matched with a procurement representative for each design function. This pair wrote the specifications
together and initiated the purchase requisitions.
From the organizational perspective, increased responsibility and accountability were given to each team member.
Individuals took ownership of their work and the decision process was streamlined. The team made more "good
decisions," rather than optimal decisions. The team was collocated, and daily meetings were used to assign daily
tasks and keep the team focused on the launch. The standard Problem Failure Report (PFR) was streamlined and
electronic reports provided snapshots of the resolved and outstanding PFRs. The report helped REAs stay on top of
potential problem areas. REAs were responsible for looking forward on the project horizon and notifying the team of
any potential problem areas.
The first satellite in the MSTI series, MSTI-1, was launched on November 21, 1992. The spacecraft weighed 150 kg
and was built for $19M in less than 12 months. Over 200,000 photographs were returned from the spacecraft. From a
project management standpoint, all mission objectives were completed.
In addition, MSTI had a lasting legacy. Faster procurement developed into an approach JPL now calls "Fast Track
Procurement." Hardware acquisition teams are used often in JPL projects. The hardware-in-the-loop test bed was the
precursor to the Flight System Test Bed at JPL. Team members moved up quickly in JPL due to the increased
responsibility and authority they were given on the MSTI project.
Summary
MSTI demonstrated that an aggressive schedule can be used to design low earth-orbiting spacecraft to optimize the
full system. The MSTI experience changed JPL's culture and their approach to spacecraft development and mission
management. The insights from this case study example can help both students and practitioners better understand
principles described in the SEBoK.
References
Works Cited
Grenville, D., B.M. Kleiner, and J.F. Newcomb. 2004. M.S.T.I., Optimizing the Whole System. Blacksburg, VA:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, case study developed in support of the NASA Program and Project Management
Initiative. 1-27. Accessed June 3, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. nasa. gov/ pdf/
293212main_58529main_msti_casestudy_042604.pdf.
NASA. 2010. A Catalog of NASA-Related Case Studies, version 1.6. Compiled by the Office of the Chief
Knowledge Officer, Goddard Space Flight Center, MD, USA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). Accessed June 3, 2011. Available at http:/ / www. nasa. gov/ centers/ goddard/ pdf/
Primary References
None.
None.

Apollo 1 Disaster
Lead Authors: W. Clifton Baldwin, Anthony Long
On January 27, 1967, the crew of Apollo 204 was training for the first crewed Apollo flight, an Earth orbiting
mission scheduled for launch on 21 February. Flight commander Gus Grissom, astronaut Edward White and
astronaut Roger Chaffee died when fire swept the Apollo Command Module during this preflight test. After the
accident, NASA reclassified Apollo 204 as Apollo 1. This case study examines some of the human factors shortfalls
that lead to the Apollo 1 disaster.
Background
On January 27, 1967, the crew of Apollo 204 was training for the first crewed Apollo flight, an Earth orbiting
mission scheduled for launch on 21 February. They were involved in a "plugs-out" test on the launch pad just as in
the actual launch, except the rocket was not fueled. This test was a simulation, going through an entire countdown
sequence. Flight commander Gus Grissom, astronaut Edward White and astronaut Roger Chaffee died when fire
swept the Apollo Command Module during this preflight test. After the accident, NASA reclassified Apollo 204 as
Apollo 1.
During the test and subsequent accident, emergency teams were not in attendance (Benson and Faherty 1978). The
fire crews were only on standby since the vehicle was not fueled (Freiman and Schlager 1995). It was believed that
the test did not rate a hazardous classification (Benson and Faherty 1978) (NASA History Office 1967), and the
emergency equipment located in the launch tower test room was not designed for the type of fire that resulted
(NASA History Office 1967). Within the capsule, there were no design features for fire protection as no one had
considered the possibility of a fire from anything other than the rocket engines (NASA History Office 1967). There
was not even a fire extinguisher in the cabin (Freiman and Schlager 1995) (Kranz 2000). Astronaut Frank Borman
later stated, “None of us gave any serious consideration to a fire in the spacecraft” (Benson and Faherty 1978).
NASA leveraged technical knowledge from the two earlier Mercury and Gemini space programs and utilized their
designs as a baseline for the Apollo program (Rosholt 1966). Naturally, some problems were expected from such a
huge undertaking. Due in part to a multitude of integration issues, the crew could not escape the fire. After the
accident, however, NASA officials admitted that they had concentrated their efforts on “in flight” situations and had
not even considered problems on the ground (Benson and Faherty 1978) (Kranz 2000).
Challenges
During the late 1960s, NASA’s systems integration group appeared to be largely paperwork focused, although
NASA considered the Apollo 204 test as a type of systems integration test (Baldwin and Reilly 2005). Regardless of
the systems integration efforts, there were obvious gaps integrating the astronauts leading to the unfortunate
consequence of the deaths of the men of Apollo 1.
Integration of the Hatch

Designing and integrating safety into the space capsule was known to be an important factor from the start of the
space program. The hatch was the primary means for the astronauts to enter and exit the capsule, and therefore it was
a vital component for integrating the astronauts.
Both the Mercury and the Apollo capsules were equipped with a means for escaping from a launch-vehicle failure
(Purser, Faget and Smith 1965) (Swenson Jr., Grimwood and Alexander 1998). This escape system consisted of a
booster rocket on the capsule that could fly the capsule away from a malfunctioning rocket. The Gemini capsule had
ejection seats instead. Due to the dangers during an emergency ejection, the Apollo design went back to an escape
tower booster (Purser, Faget and Smith 1965). Without the ejection seats, the quick-opening hatches used by the
Gemini program were not required. Initially, the Apollo capsule contractors North American Aviation had
recommended a hatch that opens outward with explosive bolts for emergencies. NASA designers disagreed due to
the accidental opening of an earlier Mercury capsule with a similar hatch design (Brooks, Grimwood and Swenson
1979). “NASA and North American designers hadn’t been as worried about escape contingencies as they were about
the possibility of a hatch popping open into the vacuum of space or another inadvertent opening during a water
landing” (Kranz 2000).
In order to keep the astronauts safe, “An Apollo mission designer would prefer that the crew never exit the space
capsule” (Mendell 1998). Therefore, the designers integrated the hatch to open inward, which allowed the internal
pressure to assist in keeping the hatch secure (Murray and Cox 1989). The result of the integration process was a
three-part hatch, an inner pressure hatch that opened inward when the capsule was on the ground, an ablative hatch
that opened outward when in space, and a boost protective cover to protect the capsule during launch from the
escape tower boosters (Freiman and Schlager 1995) (Kranz 2000) (NASA History Office 1967). Furthermore, the
designers chose not to have an explosive hatch. As an aside to the Apollo 1 accident, even if the capsule had an
explosive hatch, it would not have been armed during the test due to the danger to the support personnel (Murray and
Cox 1989).
It took at least 90 seconds to open the hatch under ideal conditions (Freiman and Schlager 1995) (Senate Committee
on Aeronautical and Space Sciences 1968). In practice, the crew had never accomplished the egress in the minimum
time. Additionally, escaping was a very complicated procedure to perform under emergency circumstances. For
example, it required one astronaut to lower another one’s headrest in order to actuate a ratchet-type device that would
release the first of a series of latches (NASA History Office 1967). When the accident occurred, it took five minutes
and 25 seconds to open the hatch (NASA History Office 1967). The Apollo Review Board criticized this problem as
well as obviously recommended it to be changed (Benson and Faherty 1978).
The accident of Apollo 1 caused NASA to reconsider its decisions and processes. Although well integrated
technically, NASA was lacking in integrating the astronauts with the hatch. To remedy this problem, the hatch was
redesigned to be single-hinged that could be unlatched in three seconds and would swing outward with minimal
force (Benson and Faherty 1978).
Integration of the Environmental Control System

Perhaps the most complex of all the human factors elements concerned the Environmental Control System (ECS).
This system was designed to control the quantity and quality of air delivered to the astronauts, maintain cabin
pressure, and heat and cool the astronauts, equipment, and cabin. Extremes of space flight had to be anticipated and
this system needed to meet the needs of that harsh environment. Redundancy was built in to provide suitable backup
systems and ensure reliability and availability (NASA History Office 1967).
NASA engineers had performed trade studies that concluded a pure oxygen atmosphere in the cabin was preferred.
Again, this decision failed to fully consider the astronauts. In 1964, Dr. Emmanuel Roth of the Lovelace Foundation
for Medical Education and Research prepared for NASA a paper warning about the dangers of pure oxygen (Benson
and Faherty 1978). Natural fabrics, most synthetics, and even allegedly flameproof materials will burn violently in a
pure oxygen environment. In that same year, Dr. Frank J. Hendel, a staff scientist with Apollo Space Sciences and
Systems at North American Aviation, wrote an article warning against pure oxygen especially on the launch pad
(Benson and Faherty 1978). Joe Shea, head of Apollo Spacecraft Program Office at the time, wrote in a memo, “The
problem is sticky- we think we have enough margin to keep fire from starting - if one ever does, we do have
problems. Suitable extinguishing agents are not yet developed” (Murray and Cox 1989).
Due to the ongoing redesign and test environment in which the ECS was operated, there was a need to change out
components quickly and easily to save time on the schedule (NASA History Office 1967). This need resulted in poor
wiring placement as well as insulation (Stavnes and Hammoud 1994). Coolant coils were placed in locations that
permitted them to be used as a handle to move about in the cabin. This unintended usage led to a leakage of coolant
in the cabin, whereby the vapors were flammable and the coolant itself in liquid form was corrosive to the insulation
of the nearly 12 miles of electrical wiring in the command module (Freiman and Schlager 1995) (NASA History
Office 1967). The cooling system was extensive throughout the capsule, and coolant leakage at solder joints had
already been a chronic problem (NASA History Office 1967).
One ECS cable was wedged against the bottom of a door used by the astronauts. When the door was shut, it would
scrape the cable. The repeated abrasion eventually exposed two tiny sections of wire on the cable (Murray and Cox
1989). When the insulation became worn away, the wiring system would fail, and sparks could arc (Stavnes and
Hammoud 1994). To make matters worse, flammable raschel netting near the scuffed cable was located closer to the
cable than it should have been (Murray and Cox 1989).
The astronauts’ spacesuits were also not incorporated well into the ECS. A suit-loop provided air quality control,
temperature control, pressure control, humidity control, and decontamination to the astronauts and the cabin. There
were three astronauts suited up and plugged into the loop with a fourth suit position. This so-called fourth suit
position provided forced ventilation and exchange of the cabin air with the suit circuit (Bellcomm, Inc. 1964). This
link of the spacesuits to the cabin could not be closed off in an emergency. The result would allow internal toxic
gases from a fire to penetrate the astronauts’ suits.
Integration of the Egress System

Until the accident, no one seriously considered the possibility of a safety issue within the capsule. The egress system,
which would allow astronauts to get away from the launch pad, was not thoroughly explored and several integration
problems were missed (NASA History Office 1967). “We all assumed that when a calamity struck, it would be in
flight. Our nightmare was an explosion during launch, or a flying coffin, a faulty craft stuck in endless orbit” (Kranz
2000). There were no formal procedures for an in-capsule emergency on the ground for either the crew or the
spacecraft pad work team (NASA History Office 1967).
The designers’ experience necessitated “The use of an escape system should a malfunction occur during the powered
ascent portion of the trajectory” (Purser, Faget and Smith 1965). Unfortunately, the designers only considered escape
situations where the astronauts had to remain in the capsule. Hazard analysis was done to “Examine all the hazards
that might require escape from the launch vehicle during powered flight” (Purser, Faget and Smith 1965).
Nonetheless, the hazards were thought to come through three operational phases, “1) liftoff and shortly thereafter, 2)
transonic through maximum dynamic pressure regimes, and 3) shutdown and staging” (Purser, Faget and Smith
1965). There is no mention of a hazard within the capsule itself.
Additional evidence for unsatisfactory egress can be found in the launch pad environment. Even if they could get the
hatch open, there were no contingency preparations to permit escape or rescue of the crew from an internal capsule
fire. The umbilical tower access arm contained features such as steps, sliding doors and sharp turns in the egress
paths that hindered emergency operations (NASA History Office 1967). Albeit too late for Apollo 1, the Apollo 204
Review Board sharply criticized the fact that the astronauts had no quick means of escaping the capsule (Benson and
Faherty 1978).
Integration Lessons
Systems Thinking Approach

A systems approach to integration with respect to the capsule and rocket may have avoided overlooking the users’
needs inside the capsule. For example, the ECS was designed without fully considering the astronauts onboard.
Decisions to limit space in order to restrict subsystems from growing in weight were made by rule of thumb. A
“whole system” integration approach could have arrived at a design for the ECS while considering the astronauts’
needs. Early integration of the astronauts could have saved time, especially since those changes had to be made
eventually, and would have saved lives. For more information, see Part 2, Overview of the Systems Approach.
Use Cases
NASA designers stated they considered three phases of operations which were known to be hazardous. A problem
with their analysis is that they failed to consider every phase, such as prelaunch or rather preflight. The designers
should have evaluated every feasible scenario, or use case, of the system, even if unlikely. Thorough use case
analysis evaluates all potential “normal” and “rainy day” scenarios. Use cases could have been developed for the
preflight phase, including any potential failure cases on the ground. The designers could have used these scenarios to
contemplate hatch issues, coolant coil issues, and especially the egress process.
Failure Analysis
The plugs-out test of Apollo 1 was ranked as a low risk without much analysis, and NASA officials stated that they
were not concerned with problems prior to launch. Although a failure analysis was conducted for the flight of Apollo
204, no failure analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), was conducted for an on-the-ground
or prelaunch situation. Once identified, proper mitigation actions could have been implemented. For more
information, see Part 3, Risk Management and Part 6, Safety Engineering.
References
Works Cited
Baldwin, W. C., and C. K. Reilly, interview by Rich Morton. 2005. Interview with former NASA Technician during
January 1967 (Dec. 13).
Bellcomm, Inc. 1964. Review of Environmental Control Systems for Apollo. B-1.
Benson, C. D., and W. B. Faherty. 1978. Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations . Vols.
NASA Special Publication-4204 in the NASA History Series. Washington D.C., USA: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. Available at: http:/ / www. hq. nasa. gov/ office/ pao/ History/ SP-4204/ contents. html.
Accessed Nov. 22, 2005.
Brooks, C., J. Grimwood, and L. Swenson. 1979. Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. Vols.
NASA Special Publication-4205 in the NASA History Series. Washington D.C., USA: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
Freiman, F. L., and N. Schlager. 1995. “Apollo 1 catches fire,” Vol. 1, in Failed Technology: True Stories of
Technological Disasters, by Fran Locher Freiman and Neil Schlager. New York, NY, USA: UXL.
House Subcommittee on NASA Oversight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics. 1967. Investigation into
Apollo 204 Accident: Hearings. Washington D.C., USA: 90th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 1-404.
Kranz, G. 2000. Failure Is Not an Option. New York, NY, USA: Simon and Schuster.
Mendell, W. W. 1998. "Role of lunar development in human exploration of the solar system," Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, pp. 106 - 110.
Murray, C., and C. B. Cox. 1989. Apollo: The Race to the Moon. New York, NY, USA: Simon & Schuster.
NASA History Office. 1967. Findings, Determinations and Recommendations. Apollo 204 Review Board, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Washington D.C., USA: NASA Historical Reference Collection. Available
at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/find.html.Accessed Feb. 18, 2020.
NASA History Office. 1967. History of The Accident. Apollo 204 Review Board, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Washington, D.C., USA: NASA Historical Reference Collection. Available at: http:/ / www. hq.
nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/history.html.Accessed Feb. 18, 2020.
Primary References
None.
None.

1151
Transportation System Examples
Denver Airport Baggage Handling System

Lead Authors: Art Pyster, Heidi Davidz
This example was developed as a SE example for the SEBoK. It describes systems engineering (SE) issues related to
the development of the automated baggage handling system for the Denver International Airport (DIA) from 1990 to
1995. The computer-controlled, electrical-mechanical system was part of a larger airport system.
Description
In February 1995, DIA was opened 16 months later than originally anticipated with a delay cost of $500 million
(Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008). A key schedule and cost problem—the integrated automated baggage handling
system—was a unique feature of the airport. The baggage system was designed to distribute all baggage
automatically between check-in and pick-up on arrival. The delivery mechanism consisted of 17 miles of track on
which 4,000 individual, radio-controlled carts would circulate. The $238 million system consisted of over 100
computers networked together, 5,000 electric eyes, 400 radio receivers, and 56 bar-code scanners. The purpose of the
system was to ensure the safe and timely arrival of every piece of baggage. Significant management, mechanical,
and software problems plagued the automated baggage handling system. In August 2005, the automated system was
abandoned and replaced with a manual one.
The automated baggage system was far more complex than previous systems. As planned, it would have been ten
times larger than any other automated system, developed on an ambitious schedule, utilized novel technology, and
required shorter-than-average baggage delivery times. As such, the system involved a very high level of SE risk. A
fixed scope, schedule, and budget arrangement precluded extensive simulation or physical testing of the full design.
System design began late, as it did not begin until well after construction of the airport was underway. The change
management system allowed acceptance of change requests that required significant redesigns to portions of work
already completed. The design did not include a meaningful backup system; for a system that required very high
mechanical and computer reliability, this increased failure risks. The system had an insufficient number of tugs and
carts to cope with the volume of baggage expected and this, along with severely limited timing requirements, caused
baggage carts to jam in the tracks and for them to misalign with the conveyor belts feeding the bags. This resulted in
mutilated and lost bags (Neufville 1994; Gibbs 1994).
The baggage system problems could be associated with the non-use or misuse of a number of systems engineering
(SE) concepts and practices: system architecture complexity, project scheduling, risk management, change
management, system analysis and design, system reliability, systems integration, system verification and
validation/testing, and insufficient management oversight.
Denver Airport Baggage Handling System 1152
Summary
The initial planning decisions, such as the decision to implement one airport-wide integrated system, the contractual
commitments to scope, schedule, and cost, as well as the lack of adequate project management (PM) procedures and
processes, led to a failed system. Attention to SE principles and practices might have avoided the system’s failure.
References
Works Cited
Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008. Case Study – Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System – An
Illustration of Ineffectual Decision Making. Accessed on September 11, 2011. Available at http:/ / calleam. com/
WTPF/?page_id=2086.
Neufville, R. de. 1994. "The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons." Journal of Air Transport
Management. 1(4): 229-236.
Gibbs, W.W. 1994. "Software’s Chronic Crisis." Scientific American. September 1994: p. 72-81.
Primary References
None.
DOT. 1994. New Denver Airport: Impact of the Delayed Baggage System. US Department of Transportation (DOT),
Research Innovation Technology Administration. GAO/RCED-95-35BR. Available at http:/ / ntl. bts. gov/ DOCS/
rc9535br.html
Donaldson, A.J.M. 2002. A Case Narrative of the Project Problems with the Denver Airport Baggage Handling
Systems (DABHS). Software Forensics Center Technical Report TR 2002-01. Middlesex University, School of
Computer Sciences. Available at http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/SFC/Reports/TR2002-01.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Advanced Automation System (AAS)
Lead Authors: Tom Hilburn, Alice Squires, Heidi Davidz, Contributing Authors: Richard Turner
This example was created as a SE example directly for the SEBoK. It describes the Advanced Automation System
(AAS), part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advanced Automation Program. It describes some of the
problems which can occur in a complex, software intensive system program if SE is not applied.
Description
In 1981, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced the Advanced Automation Program, which was
established to modernize air traffic control (ATC) computer systems. A centerpiece of the project was the Advanced
Automation System (AAS). AAS was the largest project in FAA’s history to modernize the nation’s ATC system.
AAS would replace computer hardware and software as well as controller workstations at tower, terminal, and
en-route facilities and allow the ATC system to accommodate forecasted large increases in traffic through the use of
modern equipment and advanced software functions. (GAO 1992)
The FAA originally proposed AAS in 1982 as a project that would cost $2.5 billion and be completed in 1996.
However, substantial cost increases and schedule delays beset the AAS project over its history, caused by numerous
problems in AAS development:
• The project began with a design competition between Hughes and IBM. The competition involved numerous
extensions and took four years to complete. Analysis by the FAA and others pointed to inadequate consideration
of user expectations and improper assessment of the technology risks. (Barlas 1996)
• The FAA pushed for 99.99999% reliability, which was considered by some “more stringent than on any system
that has ever been implemented” and extremely costly. (DOT 1998)
• The program created unworkable software testing schedules - “Testing milestones were skipped or shortcutted and
new software was developed assuming that the previously developed software had been tested and performed.”
(Barlas 1996)
• There were an extraordinary number of requirements changes. For example, for the Initial Sector Suite System
(ISSS), a key component of AAS, there were over 500 requirements changes in 1990. Because of these changes,
150,000 lines of software code had to be rewritten at a cost of $242 million. (Boppana et al. 2006)
• IBM’s cost estimation and development process tracking used inappropriate data, were performed inconsistently,
and were routinely ignored by project managers. The FAA conservatively expected to pay about $500 per line of
computer code - five times the industry average. The FAA ended up paying $700 to $900 per line for the AAS
software. (Gibbs 1994)
• In 1988, FAA estimated that the AAS program - both contract and supporting efforts - would cost $4.8 billion. By
late 1993, the FAA estimated that it would cost $5.9 billion. Before the program was dramatically restructured in
1994, estimates had risen to as much as $7 billion, with key segments expected to be behind schedule by as much
8 years. In 1994, with significant cost and schedule overruns, as well as concerns about adequate quality,
usability, and reliability, the AAS program ceased to exist as originally conceived, leaving its various elements
terminated, restructured, or as parts of smaller programs. (DOT 1998)
The AAS problems could be associated with the non-use or misuse of a number of systems engineering (SE)
concepts and practices: system requirements, system architecture complexity, project planning, risk management,
change management, system analysis and design, system reliability, system integration, system verification and
system validation/testing, and management oversight.
Summary
The AAS program was the centerpiece of an ambitious effort begun in the 1980s to replace the computer hardware
and software throughout the ATC system - including controller workstations, and en-route, terminal, and tower air
traffic control facilities. AAS was intended to provide new automated capabilities to accommodate increases in air
traffic. After sustaining serious cost and schedule problems, the FAA dramatically restructured the program into
more manageable pieces. This action included terminating major segments of the contract. (DOT 1998.)
References
Works Cited
Barlas, S. “Anatomy of a Runaway: What Grounded the AAS.” IEEE Software. vol. 13, no. 1, Jan., pp. 104-106,
1996.
Boppana, K., S. Chow, O.L. de Weck, C. LaFon, S.D. Lekkakos, J. Lyneis, M. Rinaldi, Z. Wang, P. Wheeler, M.
Zborovskiy. "Can models capture the complexity of the systems engineering process?" In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Complex Systems (ICC2006), 11-15 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey.
DOT. Audit Report: Advance Automation System, Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, DC, USA: Office
of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005.
GAO. Advanced Automation System Still Vulnerable to Cost and Schedule Problems. Washington, DC, USA: United
States General Accounting Office (GAO). GAO/RCED-92-264. 1992.
Gibbs, W.W. “Software’s Chronic Crisis.” Scientific American. September 1994.
Primary References
None.
Britcher, R. The Limits of Software: People, Projects, and Perspectives. Boston: Addison Wesley, 1999.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Next

Generation Air Transportation System
This article describes a massive undertaking to modernize the air traffic management enterprise. The topic may be of
particular interest to those involved in air transportation whether in connection with their careers or as pilots or
passengers on airplanes. For addition information, refer to the closely related topics of Enabling Businesses and
Enterprises and Enterprise Systems Engineering.
Background
This case study presents the systems engineering and enterprise systems engineering (ese) efforts in the Next
Generation (NextGen) Air Transportation Systems by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2008). NextGen is
an unprecedented effort by multiple U.S. federal organizations to transform the U.S. air transportation infrastructure
from a fragmented ground-based navigation system to a net-centric satellite-based navigation system. This project is
unique to the FAA because of its large scale, the huge number of stakeholder(s) involved, the properties of the
system of interest, and the revolutionary changes required in the U.S. Air Transportation Network (U.S. ATN)
enterprise.
A sociotechnical system like the U.S. ATN is a “large-scale [system] in which humans and technical constituents are
interacting, adapting, learning, and coevolving. In [such] systems technical constraints and social and behavioral
complexity are of essential essence”. (Darabi and Mansouri 2014). Therefore, in order to understand changes in the
U.S. ATN it was seen as necessary to view it through a lens of evolutionary adaptation rather than rigid systems
design. The U.S. ATN serves both military and commercial aircraft with its 19,782 airports, including 547 are
commercial airports. Nineteen major airlines, with more than a billion dollars in annual total revenue, along with
other 57 national and regional airlines, transport 793 million passengers and realize 53 billion revenue ton-miles.
The Air Traffic Organization (ATO) is responsible for ensuring aircraft navigation in the U.S. National Air Space
(NAS) system using a five-layer architecture. Each aircraft goes through different layers and possibly various zones
of this architecture as it takes off from an airport until its lands at another airport (Donohue and Zellweger 2001).
However, this architecture is fragmented and many issues are raised: an airplane’s path through its route is not
optimized, and the path may change its direction from one zone to another, the destination airport’s capacity is
limited by the current regulations of minimum aircraft separation distance due to navigation limitations, the real-time
weather information is not integrated into the system, and communications are mainly voice-based, etc.
In NextGen major changes to the U.S. ATN design are planned. As already stated, the navigation system will be
changed from ground-based communication to satellite-based navigation. The current fragmented architecture will
be integrated into a seamless net-centric information system in which the digital communication will replace the
current voice communications. Moreover, weather information will be assimilated into decision making and
planning across the system.
Purpose
The FAA’s purpose is “to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world”. Toward this end the
NextGen project is aimed at enhancing the U.S.’s leadership position in air transportation.
During the last three decades the demand for air transportation shows exponential growth. In just one decade from
1995 to 2005 this demand showed a 44% percent increase. Therefore, the change in infrastructure was inevitable.
Moreover, 9/11 attacks on the U.S. ATN emphasized this need for change. The combination of a requirement for a
safer and more secure network and increasing demand was the motivation for President Bush to enact the Vision
100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act on 2003. A major part of this Act was to revolutionize the U.S. ATN
by means of the NextGen project. The first integration plan of the project was released in 2004, and the project is
estimated to continue until 2025.
The demand behavior of the U.S. ATN shows diverse degrees of congestion among airports. Although there are
multitudes of airports in the system, the top 35 most congested airports carried more than 60% of the total traffic
consistently during the period of 2000 to 2008. Because the growth of the network demand is not proportional, the
demand in congested airports will be even higher.
A study by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) shows that flight delays in the current network will
cause $6.5 billion of economic loss until 2015, and $19.6 billion until 2025. By implementing NextGen the delays
are estimated to be reduced by 38% until 2020. Moreover, aircraft CO2 emissions are a major part of environmental
pollution in crowded cities; these will be reduced by 14 million metric tons by 2020. The current level of jet fuel
usage is also a known problem because of increasing fuel prices. The NextGen project will improve fuel usage by
1.4 billion gallons cumulative through 2020.
NextGen is pursuing multiple goals to retain the U.S. leadership in aviation, to expand the U.S. ATN capacity, to
continue to ensure safety, to increase environment protection, to help ensure national air defense, all generally
helping to increase the nation’s security (JPDO 2007a).
Eight general capabilities are defined in conducting this mission: (1) network-enabled information access, (2)
performance-based operations and services, (3) weather assimilated into decision making, (4) layered adaptive
security, (5) positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services, (6) aircraft trajectory-based operations (TBO), (7)
equivalent visual operations (EVO), and (8) super-density arrival/departure operations.
To create the desired capabilities, general areas of transformations are defined as air traffic management operations,
airport operations and infrastructure services, net-centric infrastructure services, shared situational awareness
services, layered and adaptive security services, environmental management services, safety management services,
and performance management services. The detailed changes in each area are discussed in Concept of Operations for
NextGen (JPDO 2007a).
Challenges
An instructive part of this case study is observing evolution in understanding challenges from initial steps of the
project through current efforts for delivering it. As an overall conclusion, the perspective on challenges shifted from
technical problems and intra-organizational issues to more enterprise-wide issues.
The NextGen Implementation Plan 2008 discussed the following challenges (FAA 2008):
• performance analysis, to understand and assess operational capabilities
• policy, to balance responsibility between humans and automation, for environmental management processes, and
for global harmonization strategies
• acquisition workforce staffing
• environmental planning, to resolve conflicts with local environmental constraints
• security
• transition from current ground-based navigation to automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS-B)
technology.
A more recent report on Targeted NextGen Capabilities for 2025 (JPDO 2011) highlights the effect of the
multi-stakeholder nature of the project on raising additional challenges. Achieving Interagency Collaboration is the
first issue, which is important in implementing security, safety, policy making, and technological advancement.
Increasing capacity, reducing delay and protecting the environment are the main three promises of the NextGen
project. However, reaching the defined high standards is not an easy task. A major part of this challenge is
integrating new technologies into legacy systems, aircraft, airports, facilities, and organizations. Airlines and general
aviation pilots resist the expense of additional avionics and communications equipment, even though it bolsters the
common good of air travel.
Maintaining airports and airspace security requires coherent and harmonious work of multiple U.S. agencies. The
core of this challenge is not just changing the technology but also the processes, organizational structures, and
enterprises to meet the new requirements of security.
Moreover, the need for greater information sharing in this net-centric environment is a challenge. The current culture
of limited information sharing in which inter-organizational and intra-organizational information is strictly divided
creates tension in a seamless information sharing infrastructure. In addition to that, the responsibility of generating,
sharing, and utilizing useful information should be addressed in advance to avoid costly mistakes.
Verification and validation of NextGen deliverables is a major issue. The traditional systems engineering methods of
verification and validation are tailored for testing an isolated system, while by definition a project like NextGen
requires new methodologies of verification and validation beyond the scope of one system. The knowledge and
experience of advancement in systems engineering in this area can be of priceless value for future projects.
Balance between human decision-making and automation is required to ensure a correct policy for increasing traffic
and safety concerns. Changes in both human resource and technological facilities are required to effectively address
this challenge.
The support of local communities is essential to facilitate development of the U.S. ATN and its physical
infrastructure.
Communication, navigation, and surveillance systems in NextGen are going through major changes in terms of
capacity and technology. However, planning required backups for them in case of any emergency is an area of
challenge in developing NextGen.
The rise of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) provides significant opportunities for both military and commercial
applications. However, integrating them into the NAS and developing policing and strategies for safe and secure use
is a concern for the revolutionized U.S. ATN.
And finally realizing the benefits of NextGen is dependent on the critical mass of early adopters, similar to any
technological advancement. Therefore, the NextGen project authority requires well-defined policies for motivating
stakeholders’ participation.

The FAA NextGen is not just a revolution of the U.S. air transportation infrastructure, but also a shift in its
enterprise. The enterprise architecture document, which is developed by JPDO, provides an overview of the desired
capabilities (JPDO 2007b).
The enterprise architecture is described using Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and the
Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). DoDAF is used to describe the operational aspects of the project. The three
views of DoDAF, the Operational View (OV), the Systems View (SV), and the Technical Standards View (TV), are
presented in the enterprise architecture document. The Overview and Summary Information (AV-1) is the formal
statement about how to use the architecture, the Integrated Dictionary (AV-2) defines the terms in the document, the
Community Model (OV-1) presents a high level depiction of the NextGen community, the Operational Node
Connectivity Description (OV-2) presents the information flow among operational nodes in the system, Operational
Information Exchange Matrix (OV-3) details the description of information flow in OV-2. Other architectural views
of the system based on DoDAF are the Activity Model (OV-5) which documents activities (functions and processes),
the Operational Event/Trace Description (OV-6c) is a part of sequence and timing description of activities, the
System Functionality Description (SV-4) explains system functional hierarchies, and the Operational Activity to
System Functionality Traceability Matrix (SV-5) is specification of relationships between operational activities in
architecture and functional activities. However, a challenging part of applying this Enterprise Architecture is
transformation from legacy systems to the new NextGen. This transformation is the ultimate test for relevance and
comprehensiveness of the developed Enterprise Architecture.
Acquisition is the heart of systems engineering activities in the FAA NextGen project. As mentioned in Challenges
above, the current practice of verification of validation in systems engineering (SE) is geared toward single isolated
systems, rather than a myriad of interconnected system of systems (sos). Moreover, the capabilities of NextGen are
interdependent, and different programs rely on each other to deliver the promises. 250 unique and highly
interconnected acquisition programs are identified in the FAA’s Capital Investment Plan, and these are to be
delivered by 1820 FAA acquisition professionals. In addition, program complexity, budget uncertainty, and the
challenge of finding acquisition professionals present other problems. The experience of systems acquisition in
NextGen can provide a useful knowledge for future similar projects.
Lessons Learned
Although major portions of the FAA NextGen project are technical transformations and physical infrastructure
developments, the transformation in the aviation enterprise is important but to some degree neglected. Part of the
issue might be the fact that this transformation is beyond the responsibility and capability of FAA. However, to
accomplish NextGen’s perceived benefits it is important to realize the effects of legacy systems, and most
importantly the legacy enterprise architecture of the U.S. ATN. Many of the actual challenges in the system arose
because of this inattention.
The sequestration in the U.S. government, the Budget Control Act of 2011, has cut the project funding substantially
in recent years. As a result the project schedule and portfolio are subject to constant and wide-spread changes. The
FAA was focused on delivering Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OPAM) program which
is designed to reduce the delay, fuel consumption, and exhaust emission in busiest airports. The three areas of
Houston, North Texas, and Washington D.C. were planned to complete the design phase on 2013 and start
implementation.
Out of 700 planned ADS-B ground stations, 445 were operational on February 2013. ADS-B capability is a NextGen
descendant of current radar systems and provides situational awareness for the players in the NAS using the Global
Positioning System (GPS) and Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).
On the enterprise part of the project, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 provided financial incentives
for airlines and commercial aviation manufacturers to implement the required equipment in their aircraft. These
incentives are designed to engage the air transportation community in the project and to create the critical mass of
equipped airplanes.
There are considerable practices in applying NextGen. Establishment of the JPDO made the efforts of the project
more coherent and integrated. JPDO’s main responsibility is to coordinate development of NextGen. The role of this
organization is to represent multiple stakeholders of the project, which enables it to resolve possible conflicts of
interests inside one entity. Moreover, such an organization provides a venue for technical knowledge-sharing,
creating a consensus, and making an integrated system.
Emphasizing delivery of the mid-term objectives of NextGen is another lesson of the project. It was a well-known
practice documented by Forman and Maier to establish mid-points for complex projects (Forman 2000). Developing
a mid-level system provides the system designers an opportunity to examine their underlying assumptions, to
identify best practices and heuristics in the context of the project, and to reapply the acquired knowledge thorough
evolutionary developments. A major shift in the policy of FAA in recent years was to focus on delivering project
mid-term objectives.
There are unique characteristics of NextGen which makes it a valuable case for learning and replicating to other
complex transformation projects of sociotechnical systems. The scale of the project for infrastructure transformation
is unprecedented. The system includes legacy systems and cutting edge technology, and its performance is based on
their coherent work. The project implementation is dependent on involved participation of multiple governmental
and commercial organizations. Moreover, this case-study provides a great investigation in enterprise governance and
enterprise transformation beyond a single organization.
References
Works Cited
Darabi, H.R., and M. Mansouri. 2014. "NextGen: Enterprise Transformation of the United States Air Transport
Network," in Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering, edited by
A. Gorod et al. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Donohue, G.L., and A.G. Zellweger. 2001. "Air Transportation Systems Engineering." American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics. 193 (1).
FAA. 2008. FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan. Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, DC, USA.
Accessed March 29, 2014. Available: http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/media/ng2008_implementation_plan.pdf.
Forman, B. 2000. "The political process and systems architecting," in The Art of Systems Architecting, 2nd ed.,
edited by M.W. Maier and E. Rechtin. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press LLC.
JPDO. 2007a. Concept of operations for the next generation air transportation system. Joint Planning Development
Office. Accessed March 29, 2014. Available: http://www.jpdo.gov/library/nextgen_v2.0.pdf.
JPDO. 2007b. Enterprise Architecture V2.0 for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. Joint Planning and
Development Office. Accessed March 29, 2014. Available: http:/ / www. jpdo. gov/ library/
EnterpriseArchitectureV2.zip.
JPDO. 2011. Targeted NextGen Capabilities for 2025. Joint Planning and Development Office. Accessed March 29,
2014. Available: http://www.jpdo.gov/library/2011_Targeted_NextGen-Capabilities_for_2025_v3.25.pdf.
Primary References
Darabi, H.R. and M. Mansouri. 2014. "NextGen: Enterprise Transformation of the United States Air Transport
Network." Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering. Gorod, A.,
B.E. White, V. Ireland, S. J. Gandhi, and B.J. Sauser. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Scheduled for publication in July 2014. http:/ / www. taylorandfrancis. com/ books/ details/ 9781466502390/ .
Accessed 29 March 2014.
None.

Reverse Engineering a UAV Prototype using

Agile Practices
Lead Author: Phyllis Marbach
This example shows how Agile Practices were applied to an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) that had been developed
as a prototype and was intended to be produced and marketed (Marbach 2012). At the time it was required to have
the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) approve the use of a UAV in populated areas. FAA required artifacts such as
requirements, architecture representations and test procedures to grant this approval. A team was established to
reverse engineer the artifacts needed from the operational prototypes being flown at the time. The test manager
requested that the life cycle process to produce these artifacts be agile. Stakeholder needs were determined, and a
plan was written to describe the problem and the process to be applied. Then the approach was presented to the team,
the product backlog was developed, and a training and planning session was started.
Description
The agile process is described in the SEBoK here. When defining requirements (Carlson 2010) proposes that the
requirements be identified, gathered, defined, and developed in iterations (or sprints). These requirements are written
in the User Story format and controlled and managed in a product backlog. The User Stories in the Product backlog
are selected and estimated by the team based on importance and need. The most important user stories (or
requirements) are prioritized and moved to the top of the product backlog. Then those User Stories are broken into
tasks and the tasks are estimated. The number of tasks that the team can complete are then put into the Sprint
Backlog (or iteration backlog) and those tasks are then worked on by the team. For this work the UAV and its code
were already operational. We had working code, a test bed, user interfaces and user procedures. The goal was to
produce requirements documentation, architecture and design diagrams, a trace matrix of tests to requirements,
software test descriptions and a Hazard Analysis to take before the FAA.
The team assembled were experienced engineers, but not with this UAV system. There were UAV subject matter
experts (SMEs) still on the program, but they were not always available to answer questions or come to reviews.
There was existing documentation in program repositories such as charts and operator procedures, but we did not
know where to find this information. Given these challenges it was decided to use collaborative tools to manage the
information as it was discovered and make it visible to the team and the UAV SMEs.
The first set of information produced was the product backlog. An example of the product backlog is shown in
Figure 1. Epics are a set of User Stories that take more than one iteration to complete. A user story is broken into
tasks such as those shown in Figure 2. These templates were developed to understand the scope of each task and
what the definition of done for that task was. The goal was to identify tasks that take a maximum of 16 work hours to
complete. The product backlog was developed and managed in an Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Tool.
Our team did a trades study when selecting a tool for use. Parameters considered in the trade included ease of use,
cost, and features of the tool itself. The tool selected was VersionOne.
The team then determined what collaboration tool would be used to make our discovered information visible. The
requirements for this tool were: easy to access, easy to use, easy to comment on and easy to change. At the time
these tools were available: Mediawiki, an open source, TWikiTM, another open source, Confluence, SharePoint, and
Socialtext. It was decided to use TWikiTM.
For each of the epics in work, such as “Power On”, the Description of Functionality was written in the collaboration
tool. Figure 3 shows the list of content in the collaboration tool for the artifacts being developed.
Figure 1. Example Product Backlog for an Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV)
Figure 2. User Story Templates and Task Templates for Consistent Development
Figure 3. Collaboration Tool Table of Contents for a system being analyzed.
The Collaboration Home Page had an introduction about the analysis underway. It had links to a list of functional
threads that were links to the work products themselves. There were also links to the references used, links to the test
environment information and links to templates for the work products with instructions. The work products being
developed, as shown in Figure 3, were Collaboration Tool Templates, Functional Descriptions, Requirements
including Use Cases, Hazard Analysis and Risk Mitigation, and Test Procedures including Test Cases and Test
Descriptions.
Once the requirements were complete for one Epic, such as “Power On” the material in the Collaboration Tool was
exported into a Word Document and that was parsed into a Requirements Management tool. This team used the
Dynamic Object-Oriented Requirements System (DOORS). The final Software Requirement Specification (SRS)
was created from DOORS. After peer review the release documents were baselined into the Data Management Tool
Repository that provided Configuration Management control. The Integrated Toolset used for this project is shown
in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Integrated Toolset for Analyzing a Prototype UAV
The sequence of development started with the prioritized user story to be worked first. Then the Collaboration tool
was used to capture the information that members of the reverse engineering team worked with SMEs to reach an
understanding of the functional requirements, hazard analysis and software test descriptions for the user story in
development. A formal peer review was conducted and when agreed it was ready those documents were parsed into
the requirements management tool. The Software Test Description (STD) was used to test the UAV code using the
test platform. If the STD is determined to be complete, then it is also parsed into the requirements management tool
and traced to the requirements that have been verified by testing. From the requirements management tool formal
artifacts such as the Software Requirement Specification, the Software Test Description and the Trace Matrix were
produced. Those were put into a configuration management tool. If the STD used for the testing was not Done then
any markups were made into the Collaboration Tool and the Peer Review was conducted again. Essentially, each
iteration resulted in potentially deliverable products that could be delivered to a stakeholder.
The data management tool, shown in Figure 4 by the green oval contained a repository of draft folders, peer review
records, action items created, tracking and closure, a repository of release folders, the calendar, meeting
notifications, distribution lists, access control to records, configuration management workflow and approvals, and it
provided collaboration across companies, subcontractors, and customers.
The documentation created included software requirements specification that was created epic by epic rather than all
at once, software test descriptions created as each feature is analyzed, and a Hazard Analysis being performed one
epic at a time. These documents were updated each increment. An increment is a set of iterations. Each backlog item
included conducting peer reviews of the content, as shown in Figure 2 list of tasks of each user story. Records of the
peer reviews were maintained in the data management tool as mentioned above. The definition of done for these
artifacts was that the work was not complete until the information was posted into the Requirements Management
Tool. The Software Test Descriptions were linked to the requirements in the Requirements Management Tool thus
beginning the Trace Matrix.
The Agile Practices described in this article can be mapped to LEAN Disciplines as shown in Table 2.
Table 1. Agile Practices Drive LEAN Disciplines
Summary
Systems engineering best practice is to perform requirements analysis, verification and validation as a system is
being developed. Artifacts are created and configuration controlled as the system matures. This example describes
how an existing operating prototype could be transitioned to a production system by performing requirements
analysis, risk mitigation and hazard analysis even after the prototype is developed and operational. There is value in
performing these system engineering tasks for an existing prototype to verify it is safe to operate and to achieve
approval to fly. Using iterative and incremental development of these artifacts limited the work in process (WIP).
The whole team worked one epic at a time to produce artifacts that addressed that one epic and verified the
requirements, testing and analysis of hazards relative to that one epic, such as “Power On”. Then they would work
the next epic focusing on one capability at a time therefore reinforcing each other’s work quite effectively.
Lessons Learned
• Developing Systems Engineering products such as Systems Requirements Specifications, Hazards Analysis, Test
*Procedures, and Verification Trace Matrix in an iterative incremental way is effective.
• Some new to using these principles and methods did resist at first but then saw the value and became advocates of
the iterative incremental process.
• The use of tools helped keep the work visible, aiding in communication and accuracy.
• Access to Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) was critical to producing accurate products.
• The team focused on known elements first. Then the knowledge learned was applied to elements with more
uncertainty. This applies the Lean Principle of limiting the work in process.
• The team did not start work on an element until they had what was needed to accomplish the analysis. This
applies the Lean Principle of working start to finish.
References
Works Cited
Carlson, R., Matzuc, P., 2010, “A Viable Systems Engineering Approach”, Proceedings of the Systems and Software
Technology Conference (SSTC), 2010, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Marbach, P., 2012, “An Experience Report on Agile Systems Engineering Requirements Analysis,” Proceedings of
the INCOSE-LA Mini-conference, 2012, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Primary References
None.
None.

UK West Coast Route Modernisation Project

Lead Authors: Tom Hilburn, Heidi Davidz, Alex Lee, Contributing Authors: Alice Squires, Richard Turner
This example was created as a SE example directly for the SEBoK. It describes the United Kingdom West Coast
Main Line railway project and some of the problems which occurred on this project before the implementation of
SE. It also discussed the value of applying some aspects of SE, even if this is done later in the project.
This example is based on information from a report by the UK National Audit Office (NAO 2006). It also uses an
INCOSE publication on systems engineering case studies (INCOSE 2011) to help structure its conclusions.
Description
The West Coast Main Line (WCML) is a principal United Kingdom (UK) railway artery serving London, the
Midlands, the North West and Scotland. The Line is responsible for over 2,000 train movements each day, with more
than 75 million rail journeys made each year on the route. It accounts for 43% of Britain’s UK freight market
(Railway People 2011). In 1998, the British government embarked on a modernization program called the West
Coast Route Modernisation (WCRM) project, to carry out a significant volume of modernization work between 1998
and 2008, delivering increased capacity and reduced journey times as well as replacing worn-out parts of the railway.
It was a challenging job involving 640 kilometers of track—much of which was incapable of carrying high-speed rail
cars. Some sections were seriously dilapidated, and new trains would require a complete overhaul of signaling,
power supply, and switching systems.
Early on, the WCRM upgrade had serious problems. A major complicating factor was the introduction of a new
signaling technology that was designed to allow improved services for new trains running at 140 miles per hour. By
2001, neither the rail infrastructure upgrade nor the new trains were on course for delivery as expected in the 1998
agreement. By May 2002, the projection of the program’s final cost had risen from £2.5 billion (in 1998) to £14.5
billion but had delivered only a sixth of the original scope.
In January 2002, the UK Secretary of State instructed the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to intervene and find a way
to renew and upgrade the WCML. An SRA analysis identified the following issues:
• The program lacked direction and leadership before 2002.
• The project did not have a delivery strategy and there was no central point for responsibility and communication.
• There was a lack of openness and communication regarding the program with interested parties before 2002 and
there was a lack of stakeholder management.
• Scope changes arose because WCRM did not have an agreed-upon specification that matched required outputs
with inputs.
• There was inadequate knowledge about the West Coast asset condition.
• Technology issues related to the decision to replace conventional signaling with unproven moving block signaling
introduced major risk into deliverability and cost before 2002. These technology issues caused scope changes and
program delay.
• Project management (PM) was weak, with a lack of senior management skills, too many changes in personnel,
and ill-defined and fragmented roles and responsibilities. There was no integrated delivery plan and there was
limited oversight of contractors. Poor management of contracts added to costs.
In order to remedy the situation, the SRA initiated the following actions, which align with generally accepted
systems engineering (SE) practice:
• A clear direction for the project was developed and documented in the June 2003 West Coast Main Line Strategy,
specifying desired goals and outcomes.
• A clear, measurable set of program outputs was established, along with more detailed infrastructure requirements,
which were then subject to systematic change control and monitoring procedures fixing scope. Contractors were
invited to tender complete detailed designs and deliver the work to a fixed price.
• Clear program governance structures were instituted.
• The SRA consulted widely with stakeholders and, in turn, kept stakeholders informed.
A National Audit Office (NAO) report concluded that the new arrangements worked well and that there were
benefits to this approach (NAO 2006). Until this time, one of the program's key constraints and cost drivers had been
the ability to access certain areas of the track. The new approach facilitated the ability to obtain possession of the
track for engineering work, which was crucial to delivery. The new approach also enabled the program to identify
opportunities to reduce the total cost by over £4 billion.
The NAO report also discussed a business case analysis by the SRA that identified the following benefits (NAO
2006):
• benefit:cost ratio for the enhancements element was 2.5:1;
• journey times and train frequencies exceeded the targets set out in the 2003 West Coast Strategy;
• growth in passenger numbers exceeded expectations (e.g., by 2005-06, following Phase 1 of the West Coast
program, annual passenger journeys on Virgin West Coast grew by more than 20%); and
• punctuality improved (e.g., by September 2006, average time delays on Virgin West Coast trains have been
approximately 9.5 minutes, a 43% improvement on the average delay of 17 minutes in September 2004).
The WCRM problems could be associated with a number of systems engineering concepts and practices:
stakeholders requirements, planning, analysis of risks and challenges of new technology and associated risk
management, decision management, configuration or change management, information management, and
management oversight.
Summary
The WCRM project illustrates that when SE concepts and practices are not used or applied properly, system
development can experience debilitating problems. This project also demonstrates how such problems can be abated
and reversed when SE principles and methods are applied.
References
Works Cited
INCOSE Transportation Working Group. Systems Engineering in Transportation Projects: A Library of Case
Studies, version 1.0. Seattle, WA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering. March 9th, 2011.
NAO. The Modernisation of the West Coast Main Line, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London,
UK: National Audit Office. November 22, 2006. HC 22 Session 2006-2007.
Railway People. '"West Coast Route Modernisation." RailwayPeople. 2011. Accessed July 25, 2011. Available at:
http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-projects/west-coast-route-modernisation-3.html.
Primary References
None.
None.

Standard Korean Light Transit System

Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Alice Squires, Chuck Calvano, Contributing Authors: Richard Turner
This example was created as a SE example directly for the SEBoK. It deals with systems engineering (SE) concepts
and guidelines applied to the development of the Standard Korean Light Transit System (SKLTS). In Korea, local
authorities had historically been interested in light transit to help resolve their transportation problems. The SKLTS
was a joint effort between local authorities and the central government. It was built to provide a standard platform on
which any local authority could construct its own light transit system. The issues of stakeholder requirements, safety,
and reliability, availability, and maintainability were critical to the success of this system.
Description
The elements of the SKLTS were classified into four groups (as shown in Figure 1): trains, signal systems, electric
and machinery (E&M) systems, and structures. Trains and vehicles were to be automatically operated, without need
for human operators. Operation systems and their interfaces were based on digital signals and communications. For
SKLTS, SE-based design activities focused on reliability, availability, maintainability, and safety (RAMS), and were
integrated into project management (PM) activities during all phases.
Figure 1. Subsystems of the SKLTS (Ahn, 2005). (Notes: CCU: Central Control Unit; TTC: Total Traffic Control; ATP: Automatic Train
Protection; ATO: Automatic Train Operation; PSD: Platform Screen Door) Reprinted with permission of Journal of the Korean Society for Railway.
All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
The project life cycle for the SKLTS is summarized in Figure 2. It consisted of 7 phases: concept studies, concept
development, preliminary design, design, system production and testing, performance evaluation, and
operation/maintenance/close-out (OMC) - please see (Choi 2007) and (Chung et al. 2010) for further details. These
phases, with the exception of the production and test phases, are completed through an evaluation and decision point
(EDP) (milestone), depicted as a colored circle in Figure 2. These EDPs correspond to common life cycle artifacts
such as requests for proposal (RFPs), proposals, preliminary design reviews (PDRs), and critical design reviews
(CDRs).
Figure 2. 7 phases of the SKLTS development (Ahn 2005). Reprinted with permission of the Journal of the Korean Society for Railway. All other
During the SKLTS development, SE activities were focused on RAMS as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. The SE Framework of the SKLTS (Ahn 2005). Reprinted with permission of the
Journal of the Korean Society for Railway. All other rights are reserved by the copyright
owner.
Phases Safety Reliability Function Performance
Concept studies • Requirements analysis • Identifying RAM • System configuration • Performance

conditions • Interface management simulation
• RAM allocation
Concept development • Safety planning • RAM planning • Defining scenarios and • Interface analysis
& pre-design • Defining safety • Initial availability analysis alarm procedure
procedures & levels • Pre-designing command
rooms
Design • Hazard log • Reporting RAM analysis • Defining alarm systems • Interface analysis
• Safety case analysis • RAM analysis of auxiliary • Train analysis
• Risk analysis systems • Functionality analysis of
stations
Performance • Safety test planning & • Verification and Validation • System test planning and • Performance test
evaluation testing (V&V) RAM testing planning & testing
• Maintainability test
Initial Operation • System acceptance • RAM monitoring • Analyzing systems • Performance

• Driver certification • FRACAS* • Identifying improvement monitoring
points
*FRACAS: Failure Reporting & Corrective Action System

In the "concept studies" and "concept development" phases, requirements included the RAMS objectives. Planning
activities in this phase included the scheduling of various tests and evaluations to be conducted after system design.
The basic layout of rails and command rooms was also proposed. Finally, it was during this phase that interface
management procedures and relationships between requirements and systems were defined. For RAMS engineering,
it was also important to establish associated plans and criteria (e.g., RAM plans, safety plans, service availability,
etc.).
During the pre-design phase, the basic architecture of the system was determined for safety planning, RAMS
planning, and operational scenarios. Interfaces among subsystems, management procedures for contractors and legal
regulations were defined. were defined as well as management procedures for contractors and legal regulations. The
functional analysis dealt with timeline, accuracy of stop points, and trip times. Pre-design activities also included the
specifications of major system elements such as signal systems, trains, and interfaces. For RAMS engineering, safety
scenarios were defined, and the hazard and risk analyses were performed.
During the design and performance evaluation phases, hazard log and RAMS analyses were performed to ensure that
each subsystem met safety requirements. The specifications of alarm systems and stations were also defined. In
addition, V&V and test procedures were determined for performance evaluation. During the design phase, a
design/construction interface manual (D/CIM) was developed and applied to ensure integrated and consistent design.
(Bombardier, 2005.)
Because SKLTS was designed as an automatically-driven system, RAMS issues were critical to its success. The
safety and reliability of the SKLTS were evaluated on a test railway that was constructed to standard specifications.
Data was gathered from existing Korean light rail systems, as well as the light rail systems from other countries, to
support V&V activities.
Various methods were applied for achieving the RAMS objectives, including RAMS requirements analysis, safety
and RAMS planning, utilization of systems scenarios, and construction risk analysis.
Initial operation of SKLTS was allowed only after the system was formally accepted and operators were properly
certified. During test operation, RAMS performance was continuously monitored and system scenarios were used
successfully to evaluate the dynamic behavior of the system. A failure reporting and corrective action system
(FRACAS) was used to gather accident and failure data. Continuous improvement when the system is in normal
operation was identified as a requirement; the results from the FRACAS will be used to support improvement of the
system, maintenance, and improvement of procedures.
Summary
Korean local authorities have successfully introduced the SKLTS to their precincts with some modifications.
Successful examples include the Inchun Airport Line and the Seoul 9th Subway Line. One lesson learned that was
identified was that requirement analysis, especially in the first few phases, should have been more complete.
References
Works Cited
Ahn, S.H. 2005. “Systems Engineering Applied to the Construction of Unmanned Light Rail Transit Systems.”
Journal of the Korean Society for Railway. 8(2): 41-49.
Bombardier. 2005. Design/Construction Interface Manual. Montréal, Québec, Canada: Bombardier.
Choi, Y.C. 2007. "Systems eEngineering aApplication mModel for the nNational R&D pProject: Focusing on the
rRailway sSystems." Ph.D. dissertation, Ajou University, Suwon, South Korea, 2007.
Chung, S. Y., S.G. Lee, D.W. Lee, and S.T. Jeon. 2010. “A sStudy on tThe aApplication mModel of sSystems
eEngineering to Aadvance the bBusiness of the Light Rail Transit (LRT).” Proceedings on the Autumn Conference
of the Korean Society for Railway, p. 24-30.
Primary References
None.
Han, S.Y. and A.H. Lee. 2005. System Engineering for The Technology Development Program of Light Transit
Systems: Internal Research Report. Gyeonggi-do, South Korea: Korea Railroad Research Institute.
Korean Agency for Technology and Standards. 2009. KSX ISO/IEC 15288: Life Cycle Processes of IT Systems
Based on Systems and Software Engineering, Research Report. Gyeonggi-do, South Korea: Korean Agency for
Technology and Standards.
Lee, W.D. 2002. “A study on the top-level functional analysis for the automated guideway transit by system
engineering tools.” Proceedings of the Autumn Conference of the Korean Society for Railway, p. 202-207.

1169
Utilities Examples
Northwest Hydro System

This case study presents the Northwest Hydro System (NwHS), which is situated in the northwestern United States
(the Northwest). NwHS comprises a large number of loosely coupled autonomous elements (hydroelectric dams) that
operate in a complex environment of social, regulatory, and ecological contexts. It is instructive to note that the
NwHS is characterized as a project that is concerned with planning, developing, and maintaining a hydroelectric
system that has evolved, and continues to evolve, over time. Each of the hydroelectric dams within the NwHS is also
referred to as a project, which indicates that the individual elements of the NwHS are also evolving over time
(FWEE 2016).
Background
As is shown in this case study, NwHS is an adaptive and reconfigurable system that exists within a framework of
policies, rules, regulations, and agreements. The NwHS is analyzed using each of the four provisioning paradigms in
SEBoK Part 4: product system engineering; service system engineering; enterprise system engineering; and system
of systems engineering.
NwHS encompasses the Columbia River and its tributaries. The headwaters of the Columbia are in the Rocky
Mountains of British Columbia, Canada. The river flows south into the United States and then east to west; it forms
the north-south border between the states of Washington and Oregon in the U.S. and empties into the Pacific Ocean
near Astoria, Oregon. The Columbia River drainage basin (Columbia and tributaries) is roughly the size of France
and extends across seven U.S. states and British Columbia (Col 2016).
The Columbia River has 14 hydroelectric dams (hydro dams) on its main stem. In total, there are more than 250
hydro dams in the Columbia River Basin, each of which has a generating capacity of five or more megawatts of
electricity. The NwHS produces approximately one-third of all hydroelectric power generated in the United States -
more than any other North American hydroelectric system. The amount of electrical power generated by the NwHS
fluctuates between 50% and 75% of all electricity used in the Northwest; other sources include coal, natural gas,
nuclear, wind, and solar. Excess electrical energy generated by NwHS is sold to other electrical grids. There are
more small hydro dams than large dams. Small hydro dams have a generating capacity of 100 kilowatts to 30
megawatts; large hydro dams have a capacity of more than 30 megawatts. In addition, there are numerous micro
dams that can each generate fewer than 100 kilowatts. Most micro dams provide power to isolated homes or small
communities but some are elements of the NwHS and sell power to utilities (DOE 2016). Utility companies own
some of the dams, some are locally and privately owned, and some are owned and operated by federal agencies.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) provides about one-third of the electrical power generated by NwHS
and used in the Northwest; BPA is a federal nonprofit agency – it is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. It is
self-funded and covers its costs by selling electrical power generated by 31 federal hydro dams in the Columbia
River Basin. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation operate the dams.
The Bureau of Reclamation also operates a network of automated hydrologic and meteorologic monitoring stations
located throughout the Northwest. This network and its associated communications and computer systems are
collectively called Hydromet. Remote data collection platforms transmit water and environmental data via radio and
satellite to provide near-real-time water management capabilities. Other information, as available, is integrated with
Hydromet data to provide timely water supply status for river and reservoir operations (USBR 2016).
Distinguishing characteristics of individual hydro dams are their capacity to generate electrical energy and their
physical structure. Several factors contribute to the differences in generating capacity of hydro dams: the number of
turbines/generators; the flow rate of a river or tributary; the amount of elevation that water falls in order to spin the
turbines; and environmental factors such as providing for fish passage and regulating water flow to provide irrigation
water and maintain downstream ecosystems.
Dam structures include storage dams, run-of-river dams, and pumped storage dams (DOE 2016). A storage dam
retains water in a reservoir for future use. A run-of-river dam harvests the energy in a river as it flows through the
dam but does not impede the flow. Pumped storage dams use generated electricity to pump water back up to a
storage reservoir during times of low demand for use during times of high demand. Pumped storage dams are not
common in the NwHS.
Purpose
NwHS has three primary goals (NwHS 2016):
1. To provide most of the Northwest’s “firm-energy” needs.
2. To maximize “non-firm” energy production.
3. To maintain the ecological environment.
Firm energy is the amount of electricity the Northwest will need each year. Planners rely on NwHS and other
sources to produce enough firm energy to ensure that sufficient electricity will be generated to meet estimated needs
(energy sources include hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, and wind). NwHS “firm energy” is the amount
of electricity that can be generated by NwHS when the amount of available water is at a historical low, thus
guaranteeing the amount of energy the NwHS can provide.
Non-firm energy is the electricity generated when the annual hydrologic cycle makes more water available for power
generation than in a historically low-water year. Non-firm electricity generated by hydro dams is generally sold at a
lower price than the alternatives of electricity generated by nuclear, coal, or natural gas thus making it more
attractive to customers. Excess non-firm electricity is also sold to interconnected regional grids when the demand on
those grids exceeds supply.
Other goals for NwHS include flood control, navigation, irrigation, and maintaining the water levels of all reservoirs.
Challenges
The NwHS is a large, complex system that has many challenges to be met.
NwHS hydro dams have varying design details (e.g., the types of turbines, generators, control systems, and fish
passage facilities used). This makes routine maintenance, retrofitting, and other sustainment issues unique for each
dam.
Safety and security (both physical and cyber) are common challenges for all dams; cyber security is a growing
concern. Smaller dams, having fewer resources, may be more susceptible to cyber attacks than larger ones. It has
been reported that on 12 occasions in the last decade hackers gained top-level access to key power networks (HLS
2010) (Cyber 2015).
Run-of-river hydro dams do not store water. They may not be able to meet their firm energy commitments when
rivers are lower than anticipated and flowing slowly.
The ways in which electricity generated by a dam is transmitted and sold to utilities and large industrial customers
varies widely. For instance, the Bonneville Power Administration transmits and sells power generated by federal
dams. Non-federal operators must manage transmission and sale of power produced by their dams.
Depending on factors such as size, structure, location, and ownership of each dam, a large number of policies,
regulations, and agreements have dramatically different effects on how dams are operated.
Some of the most contentious environmental issues are associated with maintaining the ecology of the rivers,
preserving salmon and other fish, and providing sufficient irrigation water while preserving sufficient reservoir water
to meet firm-energy demands (Speakout 2016).
Preserving the salmon population endangered by dams is a continuing challenge. Salmon populations have been
depleted because dams impede the return of salmon to upstream spawning beds. Native Americans advocate for their
traditional fishing rights, which conflict with governmental policies intended to maintain healthy salmon populations
in the Columbia River Basin (Impact 2016). The National Marine Fisheries Service has recently declared that salmon
recovery is a higher priority than all other purposes except flood control at 14 federal dams.

The Northwest Hydro System is a large, complex system composed of loosely coupled autonomous elements; each
dam operates semi-independently within a large network of similar entities and contextual constraints. The NwHS
evolves over time: some dams have been retrofitted to increase power generation capability or to reconfigure
connections to electrical transmission lines; new dams have been constructed; and some existing dams have been
decommissioned and removed.
Human elements of NwHS include: operators; maintainers; regulators; and inspectors. Others are suppliers to NwHS
(vendors and contractors); some humans are users of the electricity generated by NwHS (businesses and home
owners); and some are stakeholders who depend on and are impacted by the NwHS (utilities, large industries,
farmers, ranchers, homeowners, ecology advocates, Native Americans, towns).
The context of NwHS includes natural elements (rivers, terrain, weather systems, fish); elements purposefully built
by humans (transmission lines, electrical grids); cyber connections (both wired and Internet); and rules, regulations,
and agreements at the federal, regional, state, and local levels.
Given the complexity of the NwHS and its context, it is instructive to analyze the NwHS by applying each of the
four application paradigms of systems engineering presented in SEBok Part 4: the product, service, enterprise, and
system-of-systems application paradigms.
Product System Provisioning

Product system provisioning applies systems engineering processes, methods, tools, and techniques to conceive,
develop, and sustain the purposefully developed elements of a system (e.g., a hydro dam or a hydro system). In
addition, some of the naturally occurring physical elements of a system may be shaped and configured (e.g., a river
channel).
Major product elements of a hydro dam include the physical structure of the dam (including the spillway), the
penstock (used to direct water into the turbines), the generating plant (i.e., the turbines used to turn generator rotors,
generator stators and rotors that generate the electricity, step-up transformers used to increase the voltage level of
electricity produced by the generators, and connections to transmission lines).
Cyber elements sense, measure, regulate, and control water flow, power generation, safety, security, and the
structural integrity of the dam. Some turbines, for example, have adjustable vanes that are controlled to harvest
maximum energy from the water, depending on the flow rate, power demand, and other factors. The cyber elements
include: computing devices; supporting software (operating systems, databases, spreadsheets); data management
software (collection, analysis, reporting); application software (displays of monitored status and interfaces for
controlling operation of a dam); and communication interfaces to wired linkage and Internet-enabled links. In
addition, software support is provided for the analog and digital devices needed to sense, measure, regulate, and
control the purposefully built and naturally occurring elements of a dam and its environment.
Product system provisioning is also concerned with other issues that apply to individual dams, elements of dams, and
the overall NwHS. They include issues such as: manufacturability/producibility; logistics and distribution; product
quality; product disposal; conformance to policies, laws, regulations, agreements, and standards; value added for
stakeholders; and meeting customer’s expectations. Many different technologies and engineering disciplines are
needed to develop and sustain a hydro dam and the overall Northwest Hydro System. Product system provisioning
can provide the coordination and control of systems engineering needed to develop, reconfigure, adapt, analyze, and
sustain the hydro dams and the NwHS.
Service System Provisioning

A service is an activity performed by an entity to help or assist one or more other entities. Service system
provisioning can be applied within the various contexts of services provided by the NwHS to meet stakeholders’
requirements, users’ needs, and system interactions with operators, users, and maintainers, plus the interactions with
the contextual elements that determined services provided by the NwHS in the social, business, regulatory, and
physical environments.
The NWHS provides electricity to a grid that serves commercial, industrial, governmental, and domestic customers.
Stakeholders in addition to customers served include those who affect or will be affected by development, operation,
and sustainment of a dam. Downstream stakeholders served, for example, include:, Native Americans, farmers and
ranchers, and communities that receive the service of water released by the dam.
Additional service attributes include: the services that enable operators and maintainers to efficiently and effectively
operate and maintain the physical and cyber elements of a dam; release water from the dam in a manner that services
the upstream and downstream ecosystems; manage sharing of electrical power with other regional grids; provide
emergency responses to power demands that result from electrical brownouts, blackouts, and overloads; and handle
system failures that might be caused by earthquakes, terrorist attacks, and other catastrophic events.
Enterprise System Provisioning

An enterprise, such as the NwHS, consists of one or more organizations that share a mission, goals, and objectives to
offer an output such as a product or service. The mission and goals of the NwHS are to provide most of the
Northwest’s firm energy needs and to maximize non-firm energy production while serving stakeholders and
preserving affected environmental ecosystems. To meet those goals, the Northwest Hydroelectric Association
(NWHA) coordinates the planning, design, improvement, and operation of the hydro dams that constitute the NwHS
enterprise.
NWHA members represents all segments of the hydropower industry – independent developers and energy
producers; public and private utilities; manufacturers and distributors; and local, state and regional governments
including water and irrigation districts. Other NWHA members include contractors, Native American tribes, and
consultants: engineers, financiers, environmental scientists, attorneys and others (NWHA 2016).
Note that an enterprise may consist of multiple organizations that are engaged in a common endeavor. The NwHS is
a large complex enterprise that has many constituent organizations; namely, the organizations that own and operate
the hydro dams and the other stakeholder members of the NWHA. Differences in ownership, structure, location, and
size of hydro dams, the special interests of various NWHA members, and a complicated regulatory process, are some
of the distinguishing characteristics of the NwHS that can be analyzed by enterprise systems provisioning.
System of Systems Provisioning

Many systems are composed of autonomous elements that are combined to provide increased capabilities that cannot
be provided by the elements operating in isolation. The Northwest Hydro System is a system of systems comprised
of autonomous hydro dams that have different owners, different operators, different stakeholders, and different
regulators. The autonomous hydro dams could not provide the NwHS capabilities without the overall coordination
and control that can be managed by applying system of systems provisioning.
Lessons Learned
NwHS is a collection of many interrelated ongoing projects that have shared common goals and shared constraints.
The unique characteristics of NwHS make it a useful case study to illustrate how the four provisioning paradigms in
SEBoK Part 4 provide essential viewpoints for analyzing large complex systems comprised of loosely coupled,
autonomous elements.
Product systems engineering allows the collection of physical and purposefully built NwHS elements and their
interconnections to be analyzed by applying systems product engineering processes and methods.
Service systems engineering supports analysis of the NwHS services provided to customers, users, farmers, ranchers,
Native Americans, and other stakeholders who rely on NwHS for those services.
Enterprise systems engineering considers the broad scope and impact of the NwHS enterprise, both positive and
negative, on the northwestern United States within the context of economic, social, physical, and regulatory
environments.
System of Systems engineering applies the principles of planning, coordination, and operation to a collection of
semi-autonomous hydro dams that form the Northwest Hydro System. The complexity of adding new dams as well
as modifying and decommissioning existing dams in a seamless manner can best be understood by applying system
of systems engineering processes and methods.
Taken together, the four provisioning paradigms in SEBoK Part 4 present a comprehensive view of a very large
complex system whose many dimensions would be otherwise difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend when the
NwHS is examined using only one of the paradigms.
References
Works Cited
Col. 2016. Columbia River. Available at https:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Columbia_River. Accessed February 15,
2016..
Cyber. 2015. US in Fear of New Cyber Attack. Available at http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ news/ world/
americas/
bowman-avenue-dam-us-in-fear-of-new-cyber-attack-as-dam-breach-by-iranian-hackers-is-revealed-a6782081. html.
Accessed February 16, 2016.
DOE. 2016. Types of Hydropower Plants. Available at http:/ / energy. gov/ eere/ water/ types-hydropower-plants.
FWEE. 2016. Foundation for Water and Energy Education. Available: http:/ / fwee. org/ about-fwee/ about/ .
HLS. 2010. Dam Sector Roadmap to Secure Systems. Available at http:/ / www. damsafety. org/ media/
Documents2/security/files/DamsSectorRoadmapToSecureControlSystems.pdf.Accessed February 16, 2016.
Impact. 2016. The Impact of the Bonneville Dam on Native American Culture. Available at http:/ / www2. kenyon.
edu/projects/Dams/bsc02yogg.html.Accessed February 16, 2016.
NWHA. 2016. Northwest Hydroelectric Association. Available at http:/ / www. nwhydro. org/ nwha/ about/ .
NwHS. 2016. How the Northwest Hydro System Works. Available at http:/ / fwee. org/ nw-hydro-tours/
how-the-northwest-hydro-system-works/.Accessed February 15, 2016.
USBR. 2016. Hydromet. Available at http://www.usbr.gov/pn/hydromet/.Accessed February 16, 2016.
Speakout. 2016. Stop the Hydropower Wish List Bill. Available at http:/ / act. americanrivers. org/ page/ speakout/
stop-unlockhydro-senate?source=adwords& gclid=CPTF7u3G_MoCFVE0aQodiGgMQg. Accessed February 16,
2016.
Primary References
FCRPS. 2003. Federal Columbia River Power System. Available at https:/ / www. bpa. gov/ power/ pg/
fcrps_brochure_17x11.pdf.Accessed February 16, 2016.
HLS. 2010. Dam Sector Roadmap to Secure Systems. Available at http:/ / www. damsafety. org/ media/
Documents2/security/files/DamsSectorRoadmapToSecureControlSystems.pdf.Accessed February 16, 2016.
NWHA. 2016. Northwest Hydroelectric Association. Available at http:/ / www. nwhydro. org/ nwha/ about/ .
NwHS. 2016. How the Northwest Hydro System Works. Available at http:/ / fwee. org/ nw-hydro-tours/
how-the-northwest-hydro-system-works/.Accessed February 15, 2016.
FWEE1. 2016. Foundation for Water and Energy Education. Available at http:/ / www. fwee. org. Accessed
February 16, 2016.
FWEE2. 2016. Overview of Hydropower in the Northwest. Available at http:/ / fwee. org/ education/
the-nature-of-water-power/overview-of-hydropower-in-the-northwest/.Accessed February 16, 2016.
HP. 2016. Hydro Portal. Available at https://energypedia.info/wiki/Portal:Hydro.Accessed February 16, 2016.

Singapore Water Management

Lead Authors: Heidi Davidz, Alex Lee, Alice Squires, Contributing Author: Richard Turner
This example was produced as a SE example directly for the SEBoK. It describes a systems engineering approach in
the development of a sustainable National Water Management System for the Republic of Singapore. It demonstrates
the successful outcome of long-term planning and a systems approach to preempt a critical water shortage. The
example is primarily based on information taken from a paper presented at the INCOSE International Symposium in
2008. (Chia 2008.)
Description
When Singapore achieved independence in 1965, water supply depended on water catchment in local reservoirs and
two bilateral water agreements with its closest neighbor, Malaysia. These water agreements are registered with the
United Nations. The first agreement expired in August 2011, and the second agreement will expire in 2061
(Singapore 2012). After several failed attempts to renegotiate the extension of the first water agreement, Singapore
determined that it was necessary to achieve full water self-sufficiency by 2060 in case the second water agreement
also could not be extended. An intermediate goal was to match the supply of the first water agreement before it
expired. This was achieved in several ways. In 2001, the Public Utilities Board (PUB), the national water agency
responsible for treating raw water in Singapore, was charged to also begin managing wastewater and stormwater,
allowing for an integrated and holistic approach to water management.
This example examines Singapore’s water management system from a large-scale systems engineering perspective,
particularly focusing on the goals, boundaries (see Concepts of Systems Thinking), stakeholders (see Stakeholder
Needs and Requirements), and complexities involved in this type of a national system. This approach illustrates how
Systems Thinking (illustrated through causal loop diagrams) and other systems engineering tools may be used to
understand systems complexities. Concepts and methodologies of learning organizations were applied to enable
understanding of behavioral complexities. Lean thinking facilitated a long-term strategic philosophy, built on the
premise of continuous improvements.
Perhaps more importantly, it shows that while systems engineering, especially the Systems Approach, is necessary
for the conceptualization and planning of such a complex system, it is not sufficient for success. It is the systemic
structures that have been put in place over decades, political will, leadership, people, and culture that make such
tasks realizable.
The supply of water in Singapore is managed in totality. Collecting rainwater, purchasing water, and purifying water
utilizing reverse osmosis and desalination were all considered. Approaches included even incentivizing consumers to
change their habits by making drains and canals recreational areas to encourage the public not to dispose of waste in
their drains. By managing sewage and drainage together with water, environmental considerations are taken into
account as well. By carefully adjusting organizational boundaries, Singapore has managed to reduce silo thinking
and parochial interests. The relationships between the industry innovators, government, suppliers and users, and
technology innovators create opportunities for Singapore’s water management. This demonstrates how multiple
stakeholder interests can be combined to create a viable water management solution. Continuous improvements
through the use of technology and elimination of waste, such as reducing water that is not accounted for in the
system, help to assure the sustainability of an adequate supply of water for a growing Singapore population. The
Singapore Water Management system is already in successful operation and is being studied by the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and by other nations.
Summary
The supply of water in Singapore is managed in totality through a systems approach, i.e., water catchment, supply,
sewage and drainage. The importance of relationships between the stakeholders is also recognized. Industry
innovators, political leadership, suppliers, and consumers are all involved; the project has been able to incentivize
this diverse group to work together for a common goal, i.e., assuring the sustainability of an adequate supply of
water for Singapore into the future.
Utilizing systems engineering and taking into consideration the systemic structures and culture required have helped
Singapore achieve its first milestone of supplying its own water resources by 2010. Singapore has been able to
overcome the shortfall that would have come about with the expiry of the first water agreement with Malaysia in
2011.
References
Works Cited
Chia, A. 2008. "A large-scale systems engineering perspective of water management in Singapore." Proceedings of
the 18th Annual INCOSE International Symposium, 15-19 June 2008, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Singapore Government. 2012. "The Singapore Water Story." Available at http:/ / www. pub. gov. sg/ water/ Pages/
singaporewaterstory.aspx.Accessed August 2012.
Primary References
None.
Public Utilities Board. 2007. "PUB Main Website". Available at http://www.pub.gov.sg.Accessed August 2011.
Tortajada, C. 2006. "Water management in Singapore." International Journal of Water Resources Development. vol.
22, no. 2 p. 227-240.
< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article (Part 8)>

1177
Emerging Knowledge
Lead Authors: Robert Cloutier, Daniel DeLaurentis, Ha Phuong Le
Like other portions of the SEBoK, the notion and content of Part 8 is evolving. Part 8 consists of two Knowledge
Areas (KAs): Emerging Topics and Emerging Research.
Figure 1. SEBoK Part 8 in context (SEBoK Original). For more detail see Structure of the SEBoK
Scope and Purpose

While the practice and need for systems engineering began appearing in journals from 1950 onward, the practice
currently seems to be gaining momentum in most engineering and even non-engineering circles.
The classically trained systems engineers of the 1970s and even 1980s are faced with a C note shift in thinking
brought on by the rapid advance of the software centricity of our systems, cybersecurity, agent-based,
object-oriented, and model-based practices. These emerging practices bring their own methods and tools. Hall (1962,
p. 5) may have been prescient when he wrote “It is hard to say whether increasing complexity is the cause or the
effect of man's effort to cope with his expanding environment. In either case a central feature of the trend has been
the development of large and very complex systems which tie together modern society. These systems include
abstract or non-physical systems, such as government and the economic system.”
These changes and the rate of change are causing systems engineering to evolve. Some of the practices may not even
be recognizable to classically trained systems engineers. This Part of the SEBoK is intended to introduce some of the
more significant emerging changes to systems engineering. As topics discussed in this Part evolve and become
mainstream, they will be moved into the appropriate Part of the SEBoK.
System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) provides examples in recent times of an emerging topic from Systems
Engineering community that generated emerging research, ultimately resulting in a foundational body of knowledge
that continues to expand. A recent article describing this evolution from emerging topic to solution is now referenced
in Part 4 - Systems of Systems (SoS).
Overview of Emerging Topics

See further: Emerging Topics
The Emerging Topics section is meant to inform the reader on the more significant and emerging changes to the
practice of systems engineering. Examples of these emerging topics include:
• What is the potential to change systems engineering processes or the ways in which we perform systems
engineering?
• How will the development of artificial intelligence impact systems engineering?
• Will AI change the way we think of systems architecture?
• How will we perform V&V of an AI system?
• How will the push towards vertically integrated digital engineering influence systems engineering?
• How are social features becoming more tightly connected to technical features of systems, and how is the
modeling of socio-technical systems infusing into practice?
Overview of Emerging Research

See further: Emerging Research
As these emerging topics gain visibility, researchers will begin to investigate them. Corporate R&D may do early
work, but academia and government will formalize this research. The Emerging Research section is a place to gather
the references to this disparate work into a single repository to better inform systems engineers working on related
topics. The references are collected from the following sources:
• PhD dissertations
• INCOSE publications and events
• IEEE publications and events
• Research funded by National Science Foundation (NSF) – Engineering Design and Systems Engineering (EDSE)
• Research funded by Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC)
References
Works Cited
Hall, Arthur D. (1962). A Methodology for Systems Engineering. New York, NY, USA: Van Nostrand.
Primary References
None.
Engstrom, E.W. (1957). "Systems engineering: A growing concept," in Electrical Engineering, vol. 76, no. 2, pp.
113-116, Feb. 1957, doi: 10.1109/EE.1957.6442968.
Goode, H. Herbert., Machol, R. Engel. (1957). System Engineering: An Introduction to the Design of Large-Scale
Systems. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Kelly, Mervin J. (1950). “The Bell Telephone Laboratories—An example of an institute of creative technology”.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Vol. 137, Issue 889. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1950.0050.

1180
Emerging Topics
Emerging Topics
Lead Author: Robert Cloutier
The Emerging Topics section is intended to introduce and inform the reader on significant and rapidly emerging
needs and trends in practicing systems engineering within the community. It is not intended to be all-inclusive.
Instead, those topics that have a high probability of significantly impacting the practice of systems engineering, as
determined by the SEBoK editorial board, are covered. If the reader has recommendations of emerging topics that
should be covered, please send an email to SEBoK@incose.org, or leave a comment in the comment feature at the
bottom of this page.
Introduction to Systems Engineering Transformation

The knowledge covered in this KA reflects the transformation and continued evolution of SE, which are formed by
the current and future challenges (see Systems Engineering: Historic and Future Challenges). This notion of SE
transformation and the other areas of knowledge which it includes are discussed briefly below.
The INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2035 (INCOSE 2021) describes the global context for SE, the current
state of SE practice and the possible future state of SE. It describes a number of ways in which SE continues to
evolve to meet modern system challenges. These are summarized briefly below.
Systems engineering has evolved from a combination of practices used in a number of related industries (particularly
aerospace and defense). These have been used as the basis for a standardized approach to the life cycle of any
complex system (see Systems Engineering and Management). Hence, SE practices are largely based on heuristics,
with efforts under-way to evolve a theoretical foundation for systems engineering (see Foundations of Systems
Engineering) considering foundational knowledge from a variety of sources.
Systems engineering continues to evolve in response to a long history of increasing system complexity. Such
complexity arises from human and societal needs, global megatrends, grand engineering challenges, and then are
shaped by stakeholders expectations, and the enterprise environment. System solutions require both depth and
breadth, and the design of those solutions must consider both technical and social aspects (see Socio-technical
Systems).
Many systems engineering practices have become standard (e.g. studies, risk analysis) while some other are in
transitioning phase (e.g. Model-Based Systems Engineering, agile, systems-of-systems). More recently, the rise of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) introduces unprecedented challenges in verification and validation of AI-infused systems,
but also opens up new opportunities to implement AI methodologies in the design of systems.
Systems engineering has gained recognition across industries, academia and governments. However, SE practice
varies across industries, organizations, and system types. Cross fertilization of systems engineering practices across
industries has begun slowly but surely; however, the global need for systems capabilities has outpaced the progress
in systems engineering.
INCOSE Vision 2035 concludes that SE is poised to play a major role in some of the global challenges of the 21st
century, that it has already begun to change to meet these challenges and that it needs to undergo a more significant
transformation to fully meet these challenges. The following bullet points are taken from the summary section of
Vision 2035 and define the attributes of a transformed SE discipline in the future:
• The future of systems engineering is model-based, enabled by enterprise digital transformation.
• Systems engineering practices will make significant advancements to deal with systems complexity and enable
enterprise agility.
• Systems engineering will leverage practices from other disciplines such as data science to help manage the growth
in data.
• Formal systems engineering theoretical foundations will be codified leading to new research and development in
the next generation of systems engineering methods and tools.
• AI will both impact the systems engineering practice and the types of systems designed by the systems
engineering community.
• There will be a step change in systems engineering education starting with early education with a heavy focus on
lifelong learning.
Some of these future directions of SE are covered in the SEBoK. Others need to be introduced and fully integrated
into the SE knowledge areas as they evolve. This KA will be used to provide an overview of these transforming
aspects of SE as they emerge. This transformational knowledge will be integrated into all aspects of the SEBoK as it
matures.
Topics in Part 8
• Socio-technical Systems
• Systems Engineering and Artificial Intelligence
References
Works Cited
None.
Primary References
None.
None.

Introduction to SE Transformation
While the primary focus of the SEBoK is on the current practice of domain independent systems engineering, it is
also concerned with the future evolution of the discipline.
The topics in this Knowledge Area (KA) summarize SE knowledge which is emerging and transitioning to become
part of the practice of systems engineering, such as Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). In general, topics
will be introduced here and then expanded into other SEBoK KA's over time.
The knowledge covered in this KA reflects the transformation and continued evolution of SE. For a summary of the
current and future challenges that contribute to this evolution, see Systems Engineering: Historic and Future
Challenges. This notion of SE transformation and the other areas of knowledge which it includes are discussed
briefly below.
Topics
Each part of the SEBoK is divided into Knowledge Areas (KAs), which are groupings of information with a related
Systems Engineering Transformation

The INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2025 (INCOSE 2014) describes the global context for SE, the current
state of SE practice and the possible future state of SE. It describes a number of ways in which SE continues to
evolve to meet modern system challenges. These are summarized briefly below.
Systems engineering has evolved from a combination of practices used in a number of related industries (particularly
aerospace and defense). These have been used as the basis for a standardized approach to the life cycle of any
complex system (see Systems Engineering and Management). Hence, SE practices are still largely based on
heuristics. Efforts are under-way to evolve a theoretical foundation for systems engineering (see Foundations of
Systems Engineering) considering foundational knowledge from a variety of sources.
Systems engineering continues to evolve in response to a long history of increasing system complexity. Much of this
evolution is in the models and tools focused on specific aspects of SE, such as understanding stakeholder needs,
representing system architectures or modeling specific system properties. The integration across disciplines, phases
of development, and projects continues to represent a key systems engineering challenge.
Systems engineering is gaining recognition across industries, academia and governments. However, SE practice
varies across industries, organizations, and system types. Cross fertilization of systems engineering practices across
industries has begun slowly but surely; however, the global need for systems capabilities has outpaced the progress
in systems engineering.
INCOSE Vision 2025 concludes that SE is poised to play a major role in some of the global challenges of the 21st
century, that it has already begun to change to meet these challenges and that it needs to undergo a more significant
transformation to fully meet these challenges. The following bullet points are taken from the summary section of
Vision 2025 and define the attributes of a transformed SE discipline in the future:
• Relevant to a broad range of application domains, well beyond its traditional roots in aerospace and defense, to
meeting society’s growing quest for sustainable system solutions to providing fundamental needs, in the globally
competitive environment.
• Applied more widely to assessments of socio-physical systems in support of policy decisions and other forms of
remediation.
• Comprehensively integrating multiple market, social and environmental stakeholder demands against
“end-to-end” life-cycle considerations and long-term risks.
• A key integrating role to support collaboration that spans diverse organizational and regional boundaries, and a
broad range of disciplines.
• Supported by a more encompassing foundation of theory and sophisticated model-based methods and tools
allowing a better understanding of increasingly complex systems and decisions in the face of uncertainty.
• Enhanced by an educational infrastructure that stresses systems thinking and systems analysis at all learning
phases.
• Practiced by a growing cadre of professionals who possess not only technical acumen in their domain of
application, but who also have mastery of the next generation of tools and methods necessary for the systems and
integration challenges of the times.
Some of these future directions of SE are covered in the SEBoK. Others need to be introduced and fully integrated
into the SE knowledge areas as they evolve. This KA will be used to provide an overview of these transforming
aspects of SE as they emerge. This transformational knowledge will be integrated into all aspects of the SEBoK as it
matures.
References
Works Cited
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). 2014. Systems Engineering Vision 2025, July, 2014;
Available at http:/ / www. incose. org/ docs/ default-source/ aboutse/ se-vision-2025. pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed
February 16.
Primary References
None.
None.
Relevant Videos
• Leading the Transformation of Model-Based Engineering [1]

References
[1] https:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=VRnNun2EH-o
Socio-technical Systems
Lead Author: Erika Palmer
Though there are a few specific definitions, there are many ways in which the term “socio-technical system” is used
depending on the specific engineering/scientific domain. There are also different approaches for considering
socio-technical systems depending on the life cycle stage and the specific systems engineering challenge.
The Concept and Theory

The concept of a socio-technical system describes the interrelationship between humans and machines, and the
motivation behind developing research on socio-technical systems was to cope with theoretical and practical work
environment problems in industry (Ropohl, 1999).
Socio-technical systems theory has been developing over the past 60 years predominately focusing on new
technology and work design (Davis et al., 2014). This theory has developed into socio-technical systems thinking,
and research has concentrated in several key areas:
• Human factors and ergonomics (Carayon, 2006)
• Organizational design (Cherns, 1976)
• System design (Clegg, 2000; van Eijnatten, 1998)
• Information systems (Mumford, 2006)
A Design Approach
As a design approach —socio-technical systems design (STSD)—socio-technical systems bring human, social,
organizational and technical elements in the design of organizational systems (Baxter and Sommerville, 2011).
While Baxter and Sommerville (2011) refer to computer-based systems in their definition of socio-technical systems
thinking as a design approach, the generic term “technical system” is also applicable: “The underlying premise of
socio-technical systems thinking is that system design should be a process that takes into account both social and
technical factors that influence the functionality and usage of computer-based systems” (p.4).
Systems Engineering Context

In a systems engineering context, it has been argued that all systems are socio-technical systems (Palmer, et al.,
2019). However, socio-technical systems in a systems engineering context is not well defined though the topic has
gained traction in recent years (Donaldson, 2017; Broniatowski, 2018). There are examples in systems engineering
literature, where the term socio-technical systems is used to refer to a system where social and technical elements are
relevant. These include studies of agent-based modeling of socio-technical systems (Heydari and Pennock, 2018),
insurance systems as socio-critical systems (Yasui, 2011) and interdisciplinary systems engineering approaches to
influence enterprise systems (Pennock and Rouse, 2016; Wang et al., 2018).
Based on the work that the systems engineering community has produced thus far, the working definition of the term
socio-technical systems in a systems engineering context is simply:
Socio-technical systems: Systems operating at the intersection of social and technical systems (Kroes et al., 2006).
Modeling Sociotechnical Systems

There is no “state of the practice” for how to model sociotechnical systems. There are, however, a few examples in
systems engineering literature of how systems engineers could analyze these types of systems. Outside systems
engineering/engineering literature, there is an ever-increasing number of examples of social system models. The
modeling techniques found in these examples can be adapted to evaluate sociotechnical systems in a systems
engineering context. Many of these are system dynamics models, and there is a journal dedicated to social system
analysis, called the Journal for Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (JASS), which focuses on agent-based
modeling.
1) Qualitative Modeling
• Insurance systems as socio-critical systems (Yasui, 2011)
Yasui (2011) provides a new methodology to accommodate stakeholder goals in social system failures. This new
methodology is a “soft” systems approach that brings together the Holon concept by Checkland and Scholes (1990)
and the Vee Model.
2) Agent-Based Modeling of Sociotechnical Systems in Systems Engineering
• Agent-based modeling of sociotechnical systems (Heydari and Pennock, 2018)
Heydari and Pennock (2018) illustrate how to support the design and governance of sociotechnical systems with
agent-based modeling (ABM). Critically, they outline the difference between how ABM is used in physical, natural
and social applications versus sociotechnical applications.
• Interdisciplinary systems engineering approaches to influence enterprise systems (Pennock and Rouse, 2016)
Pennock and Rouse (2016) not only provide how to define an enterprise as a system, but they also illustrate this with
several ABM examples. They also highlight that when modeling sociotechnical systems versus traditional
engineering systems, it is important to focused less on “control” and more on “influence.”
3) Economic modeling
• Social System Modeling Challenges (Wang et al., 2018)
In their book, Social Systems Engineering, Wang et al. (2018) provide an overview of not only modeling and its
challenges in evaluating social systems, but they also give insight into how social system modeling is approached in
economics.
4) System Dynamics Modeling of Social Systems for Adaptation in an SE Sociotechnical Context
• Social policy (Palmer, 2017)
Palmer (2017) provides an overview of social systems in a systems engineering context, and uses system dynamics
modeling of pension and sick leave policy systems to illustrate how to use systems engineering methods for social
policy.
• Social Systems Engineering (García‐Díaz and Olaya, 2018)
García‐Díaz and Olaya (2018) give not only a thorough overview in their book (called Social Systems Engineering)
of social systems and various qualitative and quantitative modeling types, but they also highlight participatory
system dynamics modeling (stakeholder-led system design).
• Health care (Homer and Hirsch, 2006)
As there is increasing attention in the systems engineering community towards health care technology, Homer and
Hirsch’s (2006) paper on system dynamics modeling of public health gives a basis for how to model social systems
in this domain. For example, chronic disease prevention, disease outcomes, health and risk behaviors, environmental
factors, and health-related resources and delivery systems.
References
Works Cited
Baxter, G. and Sommerville, I., 2011. Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering.
Interacting with computers, 23(1), pp.4-17.
Broniatowski, DA, 2018, ‘Building the tower without climbing it: Progress in engineering systems’, Systems
Engineering, 21 (3), 259-81.
Carayon, P., 2006. ‘Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems.’ Applied ergonomics, 37(4), pp.525-535.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. 1990. ‘Soft systems methodology in action.’ Wiley: UK.
Cherns, A., 1976. The principles of sociotechnical design. Human relations, 29(8), pp.783-792.
Clegg, C.W., 2000. Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied ergonomics, 31(5), pp.463-477.
Davis, M.C., Challenger, R., Jayewardene, D.N. and Clegg, C.W., 2014. Advancing socio-technical systems
thinking: A call for bravery. Applied ergonomics, 45(2), pp.171-180.
Donaldson, W, 2017. ‘In Praise of the “Ologies”: A Discussion of and Framework for Using Soft Skills to Sense and
Influence Emergent Behaviors in Sociotechnical Systems’, Systems Engineering, 20 (5), 467-78.
Heydari, B and Pennock, MJ, 2018, ‘Guiding the behavior of sociotechnical systems: The role of agent‐based
modeling’, Systems Engineering, 21 (3),210-26.
Homer, JB and Hirsch, GB, 2006, ‘System dynamics modeling for public health: background and opportunities’,
American journal of public health, 96 (3), 452-458.
Kroes, P, Franssen, M, Poel, IVD and Ottens M, 2006, ‘Treating socio‐technical systems as engineering systems:
some conceptual problems’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23 (6), 803-814.
Palmer, E, 2017, ‘Systems Engineering Applied to Evaluate Social Systems: Analyzing Systemic Challenges to the
Norwegian Welfare State.’ University of Bergen: Norway.
Palmer, E, Presland, I, Rhodes, D, Olaya, C, Haskins, C, Glazner, C, 2019, ‘Social Systems-Where Are We and
Where Do We Dare to Go?’ Panel Discussion. 29th Annual INCOSE Symposium, Orlando, Florida
Pennock, MJ and Rouse WB, 2016, ‘The epistemology of enterprises’, Systems Engineering, 19 (1), 24-43.
Ropohl, G., 1999. Philosophy of socio-technical systems. Society for Philosophy and Technology Quarterly
Electronic Journal, 4(3), pp.186-194.
van Eijnatten, F.M., 1998. Developments in socio-technical systems design (STSD). P. J. Drenth, H. Thierry, & CJ
de Wolff, Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2, pp.61-80.
Wang, H, Li, S and Wang, Q, 2018. ‘Introduction to Social Systems Engineering.’ Springer: US.
Yasui, T, 2011, ‘A new systems engineering approach for a Socio‐Critical System: A case study of claims‐payment
failures of Japan's insurance industry,’ Systems Engineering, 14 (4), 349-63
Primary References
None.
None.

Artificial Intelligence
Lead Authors: Barclay Brown, Tom McDermott, Rael Kopace, Ramakrishnan Raman, Ali Raz, and Kevin Robinson
This article provides an overview and definitions of artificial intelligence and machine learning and their importance
to and relationships with systems engineering.
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is perhaps best defined as the ability of a system to exhibit behavior, which if exhibited
by a human being, would be considered intelligent. It’s the ability of a machine to process and learn from data, to
recognize and understand patterns, to solve problems, and make decisions autonomously. The term “Artificial
Intelligence” dates to the early 1950s where it was first introduced to mimic human-level intelligence capabilities in
software and hardware systems—a goal which still is far from reachable in the near future despite the rapid
technological advancement in the AI field . It is important for systems engineers to note that “AI” does not designate
a specific technology—intelligent behavior can be implemented in a system in a number of ways, including
conventional software or hardware logic. Modern systems that use AI fall into two major categories: systems where
the decision-making logic is explicitly pre-programmed, and systems where the decision-making capability is
learned from data. This latter category, known as Machine Learning (ML), is the predominant category for the
modern paradigm shift in capabilities enabled by AI.
Machine Learning Foundations of AI

ML builds its foundation from statistics and computer science disciplines, accelerated by the advances in
computational power and memory offered by modern hardware systems (i.e., CPUs and GPUs). The ever-increasing
number of ML algorithms available today can be classified into three major categories of Supervised, Unsupervised,
and Reinforcement learning.
• Supervised Learning is where labelled input-output datasets are available and ML algorithms learn the mapping
between input-output pairs presented in the datasets (for example, learning from clearly labelled pictures of cars
and tanks)
• Unsupervised Learning is where the labels in data sets are not available and the ML algorithms learn the grouping
or clustering of input and outputs (for example, identifying common customer attributes, classifying spam email,
or detecting fraudulent transactions)
• Reinforcement Learning is where an AI agent trains itself to make decisions to effect a positive change in the
environment based on a defined reward function (e.g., training a robot to avoid obstacles by penalizing crashes)
The implementation approaches for all ML types require large datasets and can be based on statistical models or
neural networks including Deep Neural Networks (DNNs). Irrespective of the implementation approaches and the
type of ML, the workflow for deploying an ML-based AI solution remains largely common and is shown in Figure 1
(details on each of these steps can be found in the Digital Transformation book by Thomas Siebel).
Figure 1 A typical ML Workflow
Understanding the subtleties of statistical models and neural networks for ML implementation along with the related
workflow will become imperative for systems engineers as they begin to incorporate ML solutions in systems and
perform systems engineering activities for AI systems.
Systems Engineers and AI

Given the holistic nature of the systems engineering discipline, it is practical to think about AI and its role in the
larger context of digital transformation, which can be defined as the confluence of big data, cloud computing, AI and
Internet of Things (IoT). Digital transformation is enabling organizations to evolve their business and operational
models. As such most organizations are collecting vast amounts of data pertaining to their business, operations,
systems, customers, and personnel. Big data has created the conditions that necessitate the application of AI
solutions supported by the technological advancements in computational power and memory to aid in the analysis of
big data and the automation of labor intensive and time-consuming processes.
The ability to collaborate and communicate with data scientists, AI engineers, cloud computing specialists,
application developers, and other experts is becoming a necessity for many systems engineers. Systems engineers
must become sufficiently knowledgeable and familiar with as many elements of the digital transformation ecosystem
as possible to best serve the needs of the organization and its mission in order to identify the areas of business or the
systems that would most benefit from the application of AI. Understanding the benefits as well as the potential
pitfalls of an AI development initiatives is also important. To that end, systems engineers must be able to identify the
right requirements and architectures, expertise, partnering organizations, technology stack, development platforms,
and other relatable elements. The roles and responsibilities of systems engineers versus data scientists, data
engineers, application developers, and AI engineers must be differentiated. The market is filled with an ever-growing
number of AI platforms and it is virtually impossible for a non-data scientist to be able to master each of them.
Moreover, the advances in the AI domain happen at such a rapid pace that nowadays many companies may choose to
avoid investing in their own internal data science teams to develop AI solutions. Instead, they can purchase or
license models that are ready for implementation from companies that have solved similar problems before.
Additionally, there exist unified platforms that aim to standardize workflows and come equipped with the
appropriate technology stack to collect, label, and feed data into supervised learning models or alternatively assist
with the development of models.
As a result, rather than mirroring the roles and responsibilities of data scientists and other AI domain professionals, it
is beneficial for most systems engineering professionals to develop an understanding at various degrees of depth of
the relevant technologies that support and are used to create AI applications including but not limited to the
following:
• Data integration
• Relational and non-relational databases
• Cloud storage
• Enterprise architecture infrastructure and APIs
• ML learning frameworks
• Batch and online processing
• Executable environments
• Commonly used programming languages
• UI and data visualization tools
Systems Engineering and AI: SE4AI and AI4SE

At an early 2019 Future of Systems Engineering (FuSE) workshop hosted by the International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE), the terms AI for SE and SE for AI were first used to describe the dual transformation
envisioned for both the SE and AI disciplines. The “AI4SE” and “SE4AI” labels have quickly become symbols for an
upcoming rapid evolutionary phase in the SE community. SE’s Digital Engineering transformation will enable both
transformation of SE practices using AI for SE and drive the need for new systems engineering practices that support
a new wave of automated, adaptive, and learning systems, termed SE for AI. AI4SE applies AI and ML techniques
to improve human-driven engineering practices. This goal of “augmented intelligence” includes outcomes such as
achieving scale in model construction and efficiency in designing space exploration systems. SE4AI applies SE
methods to the design and operation of intelligent systems, with outcomes such as improved safety, security, ethics,
etc.
Systems engineers have long sought to evolve engineered systems to include human-like intelligence, thinking, and
autonomous decision-making. In many cases, the inclusion of intelligent capabilities means increasing
non-determinism in the system’s behavior, exponentially increasing complexity in the design, verification, and
validation of such systems. The initial approaches of inculcating intelligence predominantly involved
human-in-the-loop for capturing knowledge from experts, codifying it in some form that is machine understandable
(for instance, a “knowledge database”), and enabling the system to interpret the codified knowledge so as to make the
required optimal decisions and exhibit the desired intelligent behavior. These initial approaches involved
human-in-the loop for the entire gamut of activities from capturing the knowledge and codifying the knowledge to
enabling (programming) the system to leverage the knowledge.
More recent contemporary approaches represent the next evolution of inculcating intelligence in systems, wherein
the human gathers the required data and programs the system such that the system can learn/build the knowledge
from the data provided by the human. Learning from data requires significant computing resources (processing
power and memory) but recent advances have expanded the availability of large amounts of both source data and
matching computing resources to enable intensive processing and learning from data. Recent ML algorithms are the
result of this evolution. The system learns during the design and development phases and is expected to demonstrate
limited forms of adaptive behavior.
In both approaches, a human is in the loop to validate the intelligence gained by the system, and to make a conscious
decision to deploy the intelligence in the system. The next evolution is expected to be predominantly based on a
system learning from the other systems it interacts with (machine-to-machine learning) and building its intelligence
from the interactions and from the ecosystem (cloud). Evolution in that direction is as seen by some of the recent
progress made in reinforcement learning models and algorithms. The system learns by trial-and-error and once it
meets performance expectations, can apply its behavior on a larger scale.
The augmented intelligence scenarios described above will need an underlying and synergistic foundation of both
SE4AI and AI4SE which are briefly described in the following subsections.
SE4AI: Addressing Practical Implementation Challenges for AI

The increasing application of AI in systems presents challenges for both the systems engineering community and the
AI community. Their common goal is to ensure that the future users of the system can be certain that the behavior
and performance of that system is what is needed. That is, the AI system’s behavior is verified through a set of
activities that check its compliance against system requirements and validate it for fitness to meet user needs. The
need for verification and validation presents a challenge for the engineering of AI systems as the failure modes
observed in AI systems are different and may not be adequately addressed by traditional Systems Engineering
life-cycle approaches. From a systems engineering lifecycle perspective, appropriate tailoring of conventional
processes is needed to “engineer” a system that is intelligent—a system that learns during development and is
designed for adaptive behavior. New approaches are required for developing requirements, evaluating when these
intelligent systems are ready for operations, and for ensuring their adaptive behavior is safe and produces the desired
outcomes. The data required for enabling a system to acquire the desired intelligence poses several challenges from
being biased (inculcating a biased intelligence reflected in the system’s behavior) to not being representative of the
various use case scenarios envisaged for the system. The system’s intelligence is only as good as the data that was
used to train it. There are many considerations pertaining to the broader challenge of engineering safe and effective
human interaction with intelligent systems. These include (a) leveraging cognitive strengths of humans and AI, (b)
gaining trust, (c) explainable intelligence (d) identifying and understanding bias, and (e) dealing with uncertainty.
Broadly there are three key challenges for the systems engineering of intelligent systems:
1. New failure modes not previously experienced in the engineering of systems. The AI community recognizes
that there are there are five main failure modes that cause the AI systems to not behave safely and as expected.
These new failure modes include negative side effects, reward hacking, scalable oversight, unsafe exploration,
and distributional shift .
2. The unpredictability of performance due to non-deterministic and evolving behavior. ML systems initially
learn from predetermined data and through the activity of validation, system engineers check the compliance of
the system performance against its intended purpose, captured in a Systems Specification. The challenge with AI,
and specifically ML, is predicting the performance and behaviour of the AI algorithm on unseen data in future
operations. ML systems exhibit non-deterministic performance, with the performance of some systems evolving
as the system learns (changes performance) during operations. This presents challenges in validating system
compliance before the system enters operations.
3. Lack of trust and robustness in future systems performance. System validation is based on a basic four step
approach: obtaining results from a validation test, comparing the measured results to expect results, deducing the
degree of compliance, and deciding on the acceptability of this compliance. A key aspect in deciding the
acceptability of compliance is expert judgement. Expert judgement requires an understanding of the result as
compared to the relevance of the context of use, and therefore the results need to be explainable. Explainable
behaviour of AI Systems is problematic, and therefore determining a level of trust and robustness in future
systems performance is challenging.
AI4SE: Leveraging AI to Advance State-of-the-Art in Systems Engineering

The next evolution of SE practices is expected to be predominantly driven by AI technologies assisting systems
engineers in the engineering development lifecycle activities. AI4SE addresses how AI can enhance the systems
engineering lifecycle for engineered systems, across the various lifecycle phases including concept development,
requirements, architecture design, implementation, integration, verification, validation, and deployment. Enhancing
and assisting systems engineering processes, methods, and tools, with tangible impacts on the quality of the
engineered system as well as on the cycle time for the various life cycle activities, would be some of the primary
focus areas of AI4SE. For instance, AI technologies can be leveraged to advise system architects on the various
architecture and design decisions options based on intelligence built from collective prior experience of decisions
made in earlier systems. A second example is leveraging AI technologies to assist in arriving at various corner test
cases during verification. Historical systems engineering life cycle data would be the predominant drivers for the use
of AI for such applications. A third example would pertain to the simulation aspects, where digital and synthetic
environments (e.g., digital twins) are leveraged to understand various lifecycle operation scenarios and providing
better insights to systems engineers on understanding the implications of architecture design decisions on the
engineered systems. However, some forms of distinction are being envisaged in the community between AI4SE as
against automation, digitization and digital linking of various SE life cycle artifacts and work products. While
automation and digitization activities may be enhanced by AI, these activities may still be dominated by
conventional software, with outcomes focused on significant reduction in life cycle time and efficiency on managing
scale.
Landscape of AI Applications in Industry and Systems

Over the last few decades, ML-based solutions have become ubiquitous in technical and social systems and have
enabled new business opportunities and even new business models. The rapid commercialization of AI is bringing
profound changes to all markets. Capabilities are advancing and it is becoming easier to develop and implement AI
solutions given the growing number of AI tools and platforms. Organizations in every industry segment are
increasingly realizing that AI is key to market leadership and that they all have processes that are suited for AI. Early
adopters of AI have noticed significant tangible benefits and given the lower barriers of entry that exist nowadays,
others are making significant investments to accelerate their AI adoption.
AI is being integrated into the fabric of business and systems and AI solutions are being deployed to solve a wide
spectrum of use cases at every layer of the enterprise. The following table provides examples of AI applications
across the different fields and sectors.
Domain General examples of AI usage
Sales Price optimization, forecasting, performance management, dynamic recommendations (think Amazon, Netflix making product and movie
recommendations)
[Ref: https://hbr.org/2018/07/how-ai-is-changing-sales]
Security Breach risk prediction, incident response, early identification and classification of cyber threats
[Ref: https://www.ibm.com/case-studies/cargills-bank-ltd]
Anti-fraud Identification of fraudulent behavior and transactions

[Ref: https://www.fico.com/blogs/5-keys-using-ai-and-machine-learning-fraud-detection]
HR Candidate assessment, screening time reduction, skills to jobs alignment

[Ref: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2019/01/08/ten-hr-trends-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence/?sh=426c0c7d3219]
Marketing Programmatic advertising for target audiences, behavior analysis, interactive marketing through chatbots
[Ref:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2019/08/21/how-artificial-intelligence-is-transforming-digital-marketing/?sh=46ae38e021e1
]
Personal Control smart home objects, interact with the web and provide answers to questions, manage calendar
Assistant
Smart tools Smart thermostats, doorbells, home security system, baby monitor, real time language translation
[Ref: https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-best-smart-home-devices-for-2020]
Finance Automated financial trading and trade validation to protect from obvious errors and irrational price swings, identification and management of
risk based on user history, classification of loan and credit applications
[Ref: https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-finance-banking-applications-companies]
Healthcare Assisted diagnostic medical imaging, management and accuracy check of electronic medical records, disease risk prevention, personalized
health management
[Ref: https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/global-ai-development-white-paper.html]
Education Virtual adaptive teaching and learning, curriculum personalization, virtual tutor
[Ref: https://medium.com/towards-artificial-intelligence/artificial-intelligence-in-education-benefits-challenges-and-use-cases-db52d8921f7a]
Autonomous Real time sensor data processing, dynamic path planning, auto health monitoring, route optimization, real time traffic monitoring
Driving [Ref: https://www.embedded.com/the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-autonomous-vehicles/]
Retail Smart inventory, demand forecasting, smart logistics, unmanned store, automated customer service inquiries through chatbots
[Ref: ]
Manufacturing Quality and safety checks, improving yield and performance, failure mode prediction, predictive maintenance, adaptive design, energy
saving, production forecasting
[Ref: https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/global-ai-development-white-paper.html]
Media Personalized media content, content discovery, real time fact checking, identifying false content
[Ref: https://neoteric.eu/blog/10-use-cases-of-ai-in-manufacturing/]
Government Non-compliant behavior and tax evasion, policy checks, citizen assistance chatbots, emergency and disaster resource identification and
and Legal monitoring, automated due diligence on background information, legal analytics, content generation
[Ref: https://emerj.com/ai-sector-overviews/ai-in-law-legal-practice-current-applications/]
Agriculture Pest monitoring, crop return prediction, optimizing yield, monitoring and managing closed environment, weather forecasting
[Ref: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/big-data/article/agriculture-harvests-big-data.html]
Logistics Predictive supply chain network management, demand and capacity planning, route optimization,
[Ref: dhl.com/content/dam/dhl/global/core/documents/pdf/glo-core-trend-report-artificial-intelligence.pdf]
Oil and Gas Oil seep detection with robots, precision drilling, temperature and pressure monitoring, predictive maintenance
[Ref: https://www.sparkcognition.com/top-4-ai-applications-oil-gas-industry/]
Acknowledgements
The article is provided by INCOSE’s AI working group and includes summarized sections from the AI Primer for
Systems Engineers which is currently under development. The AI Primer for Systems Engineers will provide a
broader view of AI discipline and its implication for Systems Engineering. The AI working group would like to
acknowledge (in alphabetical order) Barclay Brown, Tom McDermott, Rael Kopace, Ramakrishnan Raman, Ali Raz,
and Kevin Robinson for their contributions to this article.
References
Works Cited
Ammanath, B., Jarvis, D. and Hupfer, S., 2021. Thriving in the era of pervasive AI. [online] Deloitte Insights.
Available at:
<https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/cognitive-technologies/state-of-ai-and-intelligent-automation-in-business-survey.htm
[Accessed 23 April 2021].
Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI
safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565.
Jordan, Michael I. "Artificial intelligence—the revolution hasn’t happened yet." Harvard Data Science Review 1.1
(2019).
Sharma, M., 2021. Navigating the New Landscape of AI Platforms. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at:
<https://hbr.org/2020/03/navigating-the-new-landscape-of-ai-platforms> [Accessed 23 April 2021].
Siebel, Thomas M. Digital transformation: survive and thrive in an era of mass extinction. Rosetta Books, 2019.
TechRepublic. 2021. 10 ways data and analytics will impact businesses. [online] Available at:
<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/10-ways-data-and-analytics-will-impact-businesses/> [Accessed 23 April
2021].
Primary References
Siebel, Thomas M. Digital transformation: survive and thrive in an era of mass extinction. Rosetta Books, 2019.
None.

Verification and Validation of Systems in Which

AI is a Key Element
Lead Author: Laura Pullum
Many systems are being considered in which artificial intelligence (AI) will be a key element. Failure of an AI
element can lead to system failure (Dreossi et al 2017), hence the need for AI verification and validation (V&V). The
element(s) containing AI capabilities is treated as a subsystem and V&V is conducted on that subsystem and its
interfaces with other elements of the system under study, just as V&V would be conducted on other subsystems.
That is, the high-level definitions of V&V do not change for systems containing one or more AI elements.
However, AI V&V challenges require approaches and solutions beyond those for conventional or traditional (those
without AI elements) systems. This article provides an overview of how machine learning components/subsystems
“fit” in the systems engineering framework, identifies characteristics of AI subsystems that create challenges in their
V&V, illuminates those challenges, and provides some potential solutions while noting open or continuing areas of
research in the V&V of AI subsystems.
Overview of V&V for AI-based Systems

Conventional systems are engineered via 3 overarching phases, namely, requirements, design and V&V. These
phases are applied to each subsystem and to the system under study. As shown in Figure 1, this is the case even if the
subsystem is based on AI techniques.
Figure 1. Systems Engineering Phases for Systems Containing Machine Learning and Conventional Subsystems. (SEBoK Original,
modeled after (Kuwajima et al. 2020))
AI-based systems follow a different lifecycle than do traditional systems. As shown in the general machine learning
life cycle illustrated in Figure 2, V&V activities occur throughout the life cycle. In addition to requirements allocated
to the AI subsystem (as is the case for conventional subsystems), there also may be requirements for data that flow
up to the system from the AI subsystem.
Figure 2. General AI Life Cycle/Workflow. (SEBoK Original)

Characteristics of AI Leading to V&V Challenges

Though some aspects of V&V for conventional systems can be used without modification, there are important
characteristics of AI subsystems that lead to challenges in their verification and validation. In a survey of engineers,
Ishikawa and Yoshioka (2019) identify attributes of machine learning that make the engineering of same difficult.
According to the engineers surveyed, the top attributes with a summary of the engineers’ comments are:
• Lack of an oracle: It is difficult or impossible to clearly define the correctness criteria for system outputs or the
right outputs for each individual input.
• Imperfection: It is intrinsically impossible to for an AI system to be 100% accurate.
• Uncertain behavior for untested data: There is high uncertainty about how the system will behave in response to
untested input data, as evidenced by radical changes in behavior given slight changes in input (e.g., adversarial
examples).
• High dependency of behavior on training data: System behavior is highly dependent on the training data.
These attributes are characteristic of AI itself and can be generalized as follows:
• Erosion of determinism
• Unpredictability and unexplainability of individual outputs (Sculley et al., 2014)
• Unanticipated, emergent behavior, and unintended consequences of algorithms
• Complex decision making of the algorithms
• Difficulty of maintaining consistency and weakness against slight changes in inputs (Goodfellow et al., 2015)
V&V Challenges of AI Systems
Requirements
Challenges with respect to AI requirements and AI requirements engineering are extensive and due in part to the
practice by some to treat the AI element as a “black box” (Gunning 2016). Formal specification has been attempted
and has shown to be difficult for those hard-to-formalize tasks and requires decisions on the use of quantitative or
Boolean specifications and the use of data and formal requirements. The challenge here is to design effective
methods to specify both desired and undesired properties of systems that use AI- or ML-based components (Seshia
2020).
A taxonomy of AI requirements engineering challenges, outlined by Belani and colleagues (2019), is shown in Table
1.
Table 1: Requirements engineering for AI (RE4AI) taxonomy, mapping challenges to

AI-related entities and requirements engineering activities (after (Belani et al., 2019))
RE4AI AI Related Entities
RE Activities Data Model System
Elicitation - Availability of large datasets - Lack of domain knowledge - How to define problem /scope
- Requirements analyst upgrade - Undeclared consumers - Regulation (e.g., ethics) not clear
Analysis - Imbalanced datasets, silos - No trivial workflows - No integration of end results

- Role: data scientist needed - Automation tools needed - Role: business analyst upgrade
Specification - Data labelling is costly, needed - No end-to-end pipeline support - Avoid design antipatterns
- Role: data engineer needed - Minimum viable model useful - Cognitive / system architect needed
Validation - Training data critical analysis - Entanglement, CACE problem - Debugging, interpretability
- Data dependencies - High scalability issues for ML - Hidden feedback loops
Management - Experiment management - Difficult to log and reproduce - IT resource limitations, costs
- No GORE-like method polished - DevOps role for AI needed - Measuring performance
Documentation - Data & model visualization - Datasets and model versions - Feedback from end-users
- Role: research scientist useful - Education and training of staff - Development method
All of the Above - Data privacy and data safety

- Data dependencies
CACE: change anything, change everything

GORE: goal-oriented requirements engineering
Data
Data is the life-blood of AI capabilities given that it is used to train and evaluate AI models and produce their
capabilities. Data quality attributes of importance to AI include accuracy, currency and timeliness, correctness,
consistency, in addition to usability, security and privacy, accessibility, accountability, scalability, lack of bias and
others. As noted above, the correctness of unsupervised methods is embedded in the training data and the
environment.
There is a question of coverage of the operational space by the training data. If the data does not adequately cover the
operational space, the behavior of the AI component is questionable. However, there are no strong guarantees on
when a data set it ‘large enough’. In addition, ‘large’ is not sufficient. The data must sufficiently cover the operational
space.
Another challenge with data is that of adversarial inputs. Szegedy et al. (2014) discovered that several ML models
are vulnerable to adversarial examples. This has been shown many times on image classification software, however,
adversarial attacks can be made against other AI tasks (e.g., natural language processing) and against techniques
other than neural networks (typically used in image classification) such as reinforcement learning (e.g., reward
hacking) models.
Model
Numerous V&V challenges arise in the model space, some of which are provided below.
• Modeling the environment: Unknown variables, determining the correct fidelity to model, modeling human
behavior. The challenge problem is providing a systematic method of environment modeling that allows one to
provide provable guarantees on the system’s behavior even when there is considerable uncertainty about the
environment. (Seshia 2020)
• Modeling learning systems: Very high dimensional input space, very high dimensional parameter or state space,
online adaptation/evolution, modeling context (Seshia 2020).
• Design and verification of models and data: data generation, quantitative verification, compositional reasoning,
and compositional specification (Seshia 2020). The challenge is to develop techniques for compositional
reasoning that do not rely on having complete compositional specifications (Seshia 2017).
• Optimization strategy must balance between over- and under-specification. One approach, instead of using
distance (between predicted and actual results) measures, uses the cost of an erroneous result (e.g., an incorrect
classification) as a criterion (Faria, 2018) (Varshney, 2017).
• Online learning: requires monitoring; need to ensure its exploration does not result in unsafe states.
• Formal methods: intractable state space explosion from complexity of the software and the system’s interaction
with its environment, an issue with formal specifications.
• Bias in algorithms from underrepresented or incomplete training data OR reliance on flawed information that
reflects historical inequities. A biased algorithm may lead to decisions with collective disparate impact. Trade-off
between fairness and accuracy in the mitigation of an algorithm’s bias.
• Test coverage: effective metrics for test coverage of AI components is an active area of research with several
candidate metrics, but currently no clear best practice.
Properties
Assurance of several AI system properties is necessary to enable trust in the system, e.g., the system’s
trustworthiness. This is a separate though necessary aspect of system dependability for AI systems. Some important
properties are listed below and though extensive, are not comprehensive.
• Accountability: refers to the need of an AI system to be answerable for its decisions, actions and performance to
users and others with whom the AI system interacts
• Controllability: refers to the ability of a human or other external agent to intervene in the AI system’s functioning
• Explainability: refers to the property of an AI system to express important factors influencing the AI system
results or to provide details/reasons behind its functioning so that humans can understand
• Interpretability: refers to the degree to which a human can understand the cause of a decision (Miller 2017)
• Reliability: refers to the property of consistent intended behavior and results
• Resilience: refers to the ability of a system to recover operations quickly following an incident
• Robustness: refers to the ability of a system to maintain its level of performance when errors occur during
execution and to maintain that level of performance given erroneous inputs and parameters
• Safety: refers to the freedom from unacceptable risk
• Transparency: refers to the need to describe, inspect and reproduce the mechanisms through which AI systems
make decisions, communicating this to relevant stakeholders.
V&V Approaches and Standards
V&V Approaches
Prior to the proliferation of deep learning, research on V&V of neural networks touched on adaptation of available
standards, such as the then-current IEEE Std 1012 (Software Verification and Validation) processes (Pullum et al.
2007), areas need to be augmented to enable V&V (Taylor 2006), and examples of V&V for high-assurance systems
with neural networks (Schumann et al., 2010). While these books provide techniques and lessons learned, many of
which remain relevant, additional challenges due to deep learning remain unsolved.
One of the challenges is data validation. It is vital that the data upon which AI depends undergo V&V. Data quality
attributes that are important for AI systems include accuracy, currency and timeliness, correctness, consistency,
usability, security and privacy, accessibility, accountability, scalability, lack of bias, and coverage of the state space.
Data validation steps can include file validation, import validation, domain validation, transformation validation,
aggregation rule and business validation (Gao et al. 2011).
There are several approaches to V&V of AI components, including formal methods (e.g., formal proofs, model
checking, probabilistic verification), software testing, simulation-based testing and experiments. Some specific
approaches are:
• Metamorphic testing to test ML algorithms, addressing the oracle problem (Xie et al., 2011)
• A ML test score consisting of tests for features and data, model development and ML infrastructure, and
monitoring tests for ML (Breck et al., 2016)
• Checking for inconsistency with desired behavior and systematically searching for worst-case outcomes when
testing consistency with specifications.
• Corroborative verification (Webster et al., 2020), in which several verification methods, working at different
levels of abstraction and applied to the same AI component, may prove useful to verification of AI components of
systems.
• Testing against strong adversarial attacks (Useato, 2018); researchers have found that models may show
robustness to weak adversarial attacks and show little to no accuracy to strong attacks (Athalye et al., 2018,
Uesato et al., 2018, Carlini and Wagner, 2017).
• Use of formal verification to prove that models are consistent with specifications, e.g., (Huang et al., 2017).
• Assurance cases combining the results of V&V and other activities as evidence to support claims on the assurance
of systems with AI components (Kelly and Weaver, 2004; Picardi et al. 2020).
Standards
Standards development organizations (SDO) are earnestly working to develop standards in AI, including the safety
and trustworthiness of AI systems. Below are just a few of the SDOs and their AI standardization efforts.
ISO is the first international SDO to set up an expert group to carry out standardization activities for AI.
Subcommittee (SC) 42 is part of the joint technical committee ISO/IEC JTC 1. SC 42 has a working group on
foundational standards to provide a framework and a common vocabulary, and several other working groups on
computational approaches to and characteristics of AI systems, trustworthiness, use cases, applications, and big data.
(https://www.iso.org/committee/6794475.html)
The IEEE P7000 series of projects are part of the IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent
Systems, launched in 2016. IEEE P7009, “Fail-Safe Design of Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous Systems” is one
of 13 standards in the series. (https://standards.ieee.org/project/7009.html)
Underwriters Laboratory has been involved in technology safety for 125 years and has released ANSI/UL 4600
“Standard for Safety for the Evaluation of Autonomous Products”. (https://ul.org/UL4600)
The SAE G-34, Artificial Intelligence in Aviation, Committee is responsible for creating and maintaining SAE
Technical Reports, including standards, on the implementation and certification aspects related to AI technologies
inclusive of any on or off-board system for the safe operation of aerospace systems and aerospace vehicles. (https:/ /
www.sae.org/works/committeeHome.do?comtID=TEAG34)
References
Works Cited
Belani, Hrvoje, Marin Vuković, and Željka Car. Requirements Engineering Challenges in Building AI-Based
Complex Systems. 2019. IEEE 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW).
Breck, Eric, Shanqing Cai, Eric Nielsen, Michael Salib and D. Sculley. What’s your ML Test Score? A Rubric for
ML Production Systems. 2016. 30th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2016), Barcelona
Spain.
Daume III, Hal, and Daniel Marcu. Domain adaptation for statistical classifiers. Journal of Artificial Intelligence
Research, 26:101–126, 2006.
Dreossi, T., A. Donzé, S.A. Seshia. Compositional falsification of cyber-physical systems with machine learning
components. In Barrett, C., M. Davies, T. Kahsai (eds.) NFM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10227, pp. 357-372. Springer, Cham
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57288-8_26
Faria, José M. Machine learning safety: An overview. In Proceedings of the 26th Safety-Critical Systems
Symposium, York, UK, February 2018.
Farrell, M., Luckcuck, M., Fisher, M. Robotics and Integrated Formal Methods. Necessity Meets Opportunity. In:
Integrated Formal Methods. pp. 161-171. Springer (2018).
Gao, Jerry, Chunli Xie, and Chuanqi Tao. 2016. Big Data Validation and Quality Assurance – Issues, Challenges
and Needs. 2016 IEEE Symposium on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), Oxford, UK, 2016, pp.
433-441, doi: 10.1109/SOSE.2016.63.

Gleirscher, M., Foster, S., Woodcock, J. New Opportunities for Integrated Formal Methods. ACM Computing
Surveys 52(6), 1-36 (2020).
Goodfellow, Ian, J. Shlens, C. Szegedy. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In International
Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), May 2015.
Gunning, D. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). In IJCAI 2016 Workshop on Deep Learning for Artificial
Intelligence (DLAI), July 2016.
Huang, X., M. Kwiatkowska, S. Wang, and M. Wu. Safety Verification of deep neural networks. In. Majumdar, R.,
and V. Kunčak (eds.) CAV 2017. LNCS, vol. 10426, pp. 3-29. Springer, Cham (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63387-9_1
Ishikawa, Fuyuki and Nobukazu Yoshioka. How do Engineers Perceive Difficulties in Engineering of
Machine-Learning Systems? - Questionnaire Survey. 2019 IEEE/ACM Joint 7th International Workshop on
Conducting Empirical Studies in Industry (CESI) and 6th International Workshop on Software Engineering Research
and Industrial Practice (SER&IP) (2019)
Jones, Cliff B. Tentative steps toward a development method for interfering programs. ACM Transactions on
Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 5(4):596–619, 1983.
Kelly, T., and R. Weaver. The goal structuring notation – a safety argument notation. In Dependable Systems and
Networks 2004 Workshop on Assurance Cases, July 2004.
Klein, G., Andronick, J., Fernandez, M., Kuz, I., Murray, T., Heiser, G. Formally verified software in the real world.
Comm. of the ACM 61(10), 68-77 (2018).
Kuwajima, Hiroshi, Hirotoshi Yasuoka, and Toshihiro Nakae. Engineering problems in machine learning systems.
Machine Learning (2020) 109:1103–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-020-05872-w
Lwakatare, Lucy Ellen, Aiswarya Raj, Ivica Crnkovic, Jan Bosch, and Helena Holmström Olsson. Large-scale
machine learning systems in real-world industrial settings: A review of challenges and solutions. Information and
Software Technology 127 (2020) 106368
Luckcuck, M., Farrell, M., Dennis, L.A., Dixon, C., Fisher, M. Formal Specification and Verification of
Autonomous Robotic Systems: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys 52(5), 1-41 (2019).
Marijan, Dusica and Arnaud Gotlieb. Software Testing for Machine Learning. The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference
on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-20) (2020)
Miller, Tim. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. arXiv Preprint
arXiv:1706.07269. (2017).
Pei, K., Y. Cao, J Yang, and S. Jana. DeepXplore: automated whitebox testing of deep learning systems. In The 26th
Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP 2017), pp. 1-18, October 2017.
Picardi, Chiara, Paterson, Colin, Hawkins, Richard David et al. (2020) Assurance Argument Patterns and Processes
for Machine Learning in Safety-Related Systems. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Artificial Intelligence Safety
(SafeAI 2020). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 23-30.
Pullum, Laura L., Brian Taylor, and Marjorie Darrah, Guidance for the Verification and Validation of Neural
Networks, IEEE Computer Society Press (Wiley), 2007.
Rozier, K.Y. Specification: The Biggest Bottleneck in Formal Methods and Autonomy. In: Verified Software.
Theories, Tools, and Experiments. pp. 8-26. Springer (2016).
Schumann, Johan, Pramod Gupta and Yan Liu. Application of neural networks in High Assurance Systems: A
Survey. In Applications of Neural Networks in High Assurance Systems, Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp.
1-19. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010.
Sculley, D., Gary Holt, Daniel Golovin, Eugene Davydov, Todd Phillips, Dietmar Ebner, Vinay Chaudhary, Michael
Young, Jean-François Crespo, and Dan Dennison. Machine Learning: the high interest credit card of technical debt.
In NIPS 2014 Workshop on Software Engineering for Machine Learning (SE4ML), December 2014.
Seshia, Sanjit A. Compositional verification without compositional specification for learning-based systems.
Technical Report UCB/EECS-2017-164, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, Nov 2017.
Seshia, Sanjit A., Dorsa Sadigh, and S. Shankar Sastry. Towards Verified Artificial Intelligence.
arXiv:1606.08514v4 [cs.AI] 23 Jul 2020.
Szegedy, Christian, Zaremba, Wojciech, Sutskever, Ilya, Bruna, Joan, Erhan, Dumitru, Goodfellow, Ian J., and
Fergus, Rob. Intriguing properties of neural networks. ICLR, abs/1312.6199, 2014b. URL
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6199.
Taylor, Brian, ed. Methods and Procedures for the Verification and Validation of Artificial Neural Networks,
Springer-Verlag, 2005.
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Tiwari, Ashish, Bruno Dutertre, Dejan Jovanović, Thomas de Candia, Patrick D. Lincoln, John Rushby, Dorsa
Sadigh, and Sanjit Seshia. Safety envelope for security. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on High
Confidence Networked Systems (HiCoNS), pp. 85-94, Berlin, Germany, April 2014. ACM.
Uesato, Jonathan, O’Donoghue, Brendan, van den Oord, Aaron, Kohli, Pushmeet. Adversarial Risk and the Dangers
of Evaluating Against Weak Attacks. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning,
Stockholm, Sweden, PMLR 80, 2018.
Varshney, Kush R., and Homa Alemzadeh. On the safety of machine learning: Cyber-physical systems, decision
sciences, and data products. Big Data, 5(3):246–255, 2017.
Webster, M., Wester, D.G., Araiza-Illan, D., Dixon, C., Eder, K., Fisher, M., Pipe, A.G. A corroborative approach to
verification and validation of human-robot teams. J. Robotics Research 39(1) (2020).
Xie, Xiaoyuan, J.W.K. Ho, C. Murphy, G. Kaiser, B. Xu, and T.Y. Chen. 2011. “Testing and Validating Machine
Learning Classifiers by Metamorphic Testing,” Journal of Software Testing, April 1, 84(4): 544-558,
doi:10.1016/j.jss.2010.11.920.
Zhang, J., Li, J. Testing and verification of neural-network-based safety-critical control software: A systematic
literature review. Information and Software Technology 123, 106296 (2020).
Zhang, J.M., Harman, M., Ma, L., Liu, Y. Machine learning testing: Survey, landscapes and horizons. IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TSE.2019.2962027.
Primary References
Belani, Hrvoje, Marin Vuković, and Željka Car. Requirements Engineering Challenges in Building AI-Based
Complex Systems. 2019. IEEE 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW).
Dutta, S., Jha, S., Sankaranarayanan, S., Tiwari, A. 2018. Output range analysis for deep feedforward neural
networks. In: NASA Formal Methods. pp. 121-138.
Gopinath, D., G. Katz, C. Pāsāreanu, and C. Barrett. 2018. DeepSafe: A Data-Driven Approach for Assessing
Robustness of Neural Networks. In: ATVA.
Huang, X., M. Kwiatkowska, S. Wang and M. Wu. 2017. Safety Verification of Deep Neural Networks. Computer
Aided Verification.
Jha, S., V. Raman, A. Pinto, T. Sahai, and M. Francis. 2017. On Learning Sparse Boolean Formulae for Explaining
AI Decisions, NASA Formal Methods.
Katz, G., C. Barrett, D. Dill, K. Julian, M. Kochenderfer. 2017. Reluplex: An Efficient SMT Solver for Verifying
Deep Neural Networks, https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01135.
Leofante, F., N. Narodytska, L. Pulina, A. Tacchella. 2018. Automated Verification of Neural Networks: Advances,
Challenges and Perspectives, https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.09938 Marijan, Dusica and Arnaud Gotlieb. Software
Testing for Machine Learning. The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-20) (2020)
Mirman, M., T. Gehr, and M. Vechev. 2018. Differentiable Abstract Interpretation for Provably Robust Neural
Networks. International Conference on Machine Learning.
Pullum, Laura L., Brian Taylor, and Marjorie Darrah, Guidance for the Verification and Validation of Neural
Networks, IEEE Computer Society Press (Wiley), 2007.
Seshia, Sanjit A., Dorsa Sadigh, and S. Shankar Sastry. Towards Verified Artificial Intelligence.
arXiv:1606.08514v4 [cs.AI] 23 Jul 2020.
Taylor, Brian, ed. Methods and Procedures for the Verification and Validation of Artificial Neural Networks,
Springer-Verlag, 2005.
Xiang, W., P. Musau, A. Wild, D.M. Lopez, N. Hamilton, X. Yang, J. Rosenfeld, and T. Johnson. 2018. Verification
for Machine Learning, Autonomy, and Neural Networks Survey. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01989
Zhang, J., Li, J. Testing and verification of neural-network-based safety-critical control software: A systematic
literature review. Information and Software Technology 123, 106296 (2020).
Jha, Sumit Kumar, Susmit Jha, Rickard Ewetz, Sunny Raj, Alvaro Velasquez, Laura L. Pullum, and Ananthram
Swami. An Extension of Fano’s Inequality for Characterizing Model Susceptibility to Membership Inference
Attacks. arXiv:2009.08097v1 [cs.LG] 17 Sep 2020.
Sunny Raj, Mesut Ozdag, Steven Fernandes, Sumit Kumar Jha, Laura Pullum, “On the Susceptibility of Deep Neural
Networks to Natural Perturbations,” AI Safety 2019 (held in conjunction with IJCAI 2019 - International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence), Macao, China, August 2019.
Ak, R., R. Ghosh, G. Shao, H. Reed, Y.-T. Lee, L.L. Pullum. “Verification-Validation and Uncertainty
Quantification Methods for Data-Driven Models in Advanced Manufacturing,” ASME Verification and Validation
Symposium, Minneapolis, MN, 2018.
Pullum, L.L., C.A. Steed, S.K. Jha, and A. Ramanathan. “Mathematically Rigorous Verification and Validation of
Scientific Machine Learning,” DOE Scientific Machine Learning Workshop, Bethesda, MD, Jan/Feb 2018.
Ramanathan, A., L.L. Pullum, Zubir Husein, Sunny Raj, Neslisah Totosdagli, Sumanta Pattanaik, and S.K. Jha.
2017. “Adversarial attacks on computer vision algorithms using natural perturbations.” In 2017 10th International
Conference on Contemporary Computing (IC3). Noida, India. August 2017.
Raj, S., L.L. Pullum, A. Ramanathan, and S.K. Jha. 2017. “Work in Progress: Testing Autonomous cyber-physical
systems using fuzzing features derived from convolutional neural networks.” In ACM SIGBED International
Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT). Seoul, South Korea. October 2017.
Raj, S., L.L. Pullum, A. Ramanathan, and S.K. Jha, “SATYA: Defending against Adversarial Attacks using
Statistical Hypothesis Testing,” in 10th International Symposium on Foundations and Practice of Security (FPS
2017), Nancy, France. (Best Paper Award), 2017.
Ramanathan, A., Pullum, L.L., S. Jha, et al. “Integrating Symbolic and Statistical Methods for Testing Intelligent
Systems: Applications to Machine Learning and Computer Vision.” IEEE Design, Automation & Test in
Europe(DATE), 2016.
Pullum, L.L., C. Rouff, R. Buskens, X. Cui, E. Vassiv, and M. Hinchey, “Verification of Adaptive Systems,” AIAA
Infotech@Aerospace 2012, April 2012.
Pullum, L.L., and C. Symons, “Failure Analysis of a Complex Learning Framework Incorporating Multi-Modal and
Semi-Supervised Learning,” In IEEE Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing(PRDC 2011),
308-313, 2011.
Haglich, P., C. Rouff, and L.L. Pullum, “Detecting Emergent Behaviors with Semi-Boolean Algebra,” Proceedings
of AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace, 2010.
Pullum, L.L., Marjorie A. Darrah, and Brian J. Taylor, “Independent Verification and Validation of Neural Networks
– Developing Practitioner Assistance,” Software Tech News, July 2004.

Transitioning Systems Engineering to a

Model-based Discipline
Systems engineers have always leveraged many kinds of models, including functional models to support
requirements development, simulation models to analyze the behavior of systems, and other analytical models to
analyze various aspects of the system such as reliability, safety, mass properties, power consumption, and cost.
However, the discipline still relies heavily on document-based artifacts to capture much of the system specification
and design information, such as requirements, interface control documentation, and system architecture design
descriptions. This information is often spread across many different documents including text, informal drawings,
and spreadsheets. This document-based approach to systems engineering suffers from a lack of precision,
inconsistencies from one artifact to another, and difficulties in maintaining and reusing the information.
Model-Based Systems Engineering

Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is the formalized application of modeling to support system
requirements, design, analysis, verification, and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and
continuing through development and later life cycle phases (INCOSE 2007). A distinguishing characteristic of an
MBSE approach is that the model constitutes a primary artifact of the systems engineering process. The focus on
developing, managing and controlling a model of the system is a shift from the traditional document-based approach
to systems engineering, where the emphasis is on producing and controlling documentation about the system. By
leveraging the system model as a primary artifact, MBSE offers the potential to enhance product quality, enhance
reuse of the system modeling artifacts, and improve communications among the systems development team. This, in
turn, offers the potential to reduce the time and cost to integrate and test the system, and significantly reduce cost,
schedule, and risks in fielding a system.
MBSE includes a diverse set of descriptive and analytical models that can be applied throughout the life cycle, and
from system of systems (SoS) modeling down to component modeling. Typical models may include descriptive
models of the system architecture that are used to specify and design the system, and analytical models to analyze
system performance, physical characteristics, and other quality characteristics such as reliability, maintainability,
safety, and cost.
MBSE has been evolving for many years. The term MBSE was used by Wayne Wymore in his book by this name
(Wymore 1993), that provided a state-based formalism for analyzing systems in terms of their input/output
characteristics, and value functions for assessing utility of technology independent and technology dependent
systems. Simulations have been extensively used across industry to provide high fidelity performance analysis of
complex systems. The Standard for Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0 1993) was introduced in
the 1990’s to support basic functional modeling. A modeling formalism called the enhanced functional flow block
diagram (Long 2000) has been used to model many different types of systems. The Object Management Group
(OMG) introduced the concept of a Model Driven Architecture (MDA®) (OMG 2003) that leverages a
standards-based approach to modeling. The Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML™) (OMG 2015) was
adopted by the OMG in 2006 as a general-purpose systems modeling language. In addition, the Unified Profile for
DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) (OMG 2013) was adopted by the OMG in 2008 to support enterprise modeling.
Several other domain specific modeling languages have been introduced as well.
MBSE Transition
The INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2025 (INCOSE 2025, pg 38) describes the current state of MBSE as
follows: “Model-based systems engineering has grown in popularity as a way to deal with the limitations of
document-based approaches, but is still in an early stage of maturity similar to the early days of CAD/CAE.”
SE Vision 2025 also describes a continuing transition of SE to a model-based discipline in which: “Formal systems
modeling is standard practice for specifying, analyzing, designing, and verifying systems, and is fully integrated with
other engineering models. System models are adapted to the application domain, and include a broad spectrum of
models for representing all aspects of systems. The use of internet driven knowledge representation and immersive
technologies enable highly efficient and shared human understanding of systems in a virtual environment that span
the full life cycle from concept through development, manufacturing, operations, and support.” The transition to a
more model-based discipline is not without its challenges. This requires both advancements in the practice, and the
need to achieve more widespread adoption of MBSE within organizations across industry sectors.
The INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2035 (INCOSE 2035, pg 33) states that "The Future of Systems
Engineering Is Predominantly Model-Based". Further discussion goes on to project that "Systems engineers routinely
compose task-specific virtual models using ontologically linked, digital twin-based model-assets. These connected
models are updated in real-time providing a virtual reality-based, immersive design and exploration space. This
virtual global collaboration space is cloud- based, enabled by modelling as a service and supports massive simulation
leveraging cloud-based high-capacity compute infrastructure. Families of unified ModSim frameworks exist
enabling small and medium businesses along with Government agencies to collaborate."
Advancing the practice requires improvements in the modeling languages, methods, and tools. The modeling
languages must continue to improve in terms of their expressiveness, precision, and usability. MBSE methods, such
as those highlighted in A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies (Estefan 2008), have
continued to evolve, but require further advancements to provide a rigorous approach to modeling a system across
the full system lifecycle, while being more adaptable to a diverse range of application domains. The modeling tools
must also continue to evolve to support the modeling languages and methods, and to integrate with other
multi-disciplinary engineering models and tools in support of the broader model-based engineering effort. The
movement towards increased use of modeling standards, that are more widely available in commercial tools, and
rigorous model-based methodologies, increase the promise of MBSE.
The adoption of MBSE requires a workforce that is skilled in the application of MBSE. This requires organizations
to provide an infrastructure that includes MBSE methods, tools, and training, and a commitment to deploy this
capability to their programs. As with any organizational change, this must be approached strategically to grow this
capability and learn from their experiences.
Like other engineering disciplines, the transition of systems engineering to a model-based discipline is broadly
recognized as essential to meet the challenges associated with increasing system complexity and achieving the
productivity and quality improvements. The SEBoK will continue to reflect the growing body of knowledge to
facilitate this transition.
References
Works Cited
Estefan, J. 2008. A Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies, rev. B. Seattle, WA:
International Council on Systems Engineering.
INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02. Available at: http:/ / www. omgsysml. org/ MBSE_Methodology_Survey_RevB. pdf.
Accessed April 13, 2015.
INCOSE 2020. INCOSE Technical Operations. 2007. Systems Engineering Vision 2020, version 2.03. Seattle, WA:
International Council on Systems Engineering, Seattle, WA, INCOSE-TP-2004-004-02.
[1]
INCOSE 2035, INCOSE Technical Operations. 2021. Systems Engineering Vision 2035 . Seattle, WA:
International Council on Systems Engineering, Seattle, WA.
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) 2014. Systems Engineering Vision 2025July, 2014.
Available at http:/ / www. incose. org/ docs/ default-source/ aboutse/ se-vision-2025. pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed
February 16.
Long , James E. 2000,Systems Engineering (SE) 101, CORE ®: Product & Process Engineering Solutions, Vitech
Training Materials, Vienna, VA, USA: Vitech Corporation.
Object Management Group (OMG). 2003. Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) Guide, v1.01, June 12 2003. Available
at: http://www.omg.org/mda/.
Object Management Group (OMG). 2015. OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML™), V1.4. OMG
document number formal/2015-06-03, September 2015. Available at: http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.4/.
Object Management Group (OMG). 2013. Unified Profile for DoDAF/MODAF (UPDM) OMG document. number
formal/2013-08-04, August 2013. Available at: http://www.omg.org/spec/UPDM/2.1/.
Computer Systems Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 1993. Standard for
Integration Definition for Function Modeling(IDEF0), Draft Federal Information Processing Standards, Publication
183, December 21, 1993.
Wymore, W. 1993. Model-Based Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Primary References
INCOSE. 2015. [INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook|Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life
Cycle Processes and Activities], Section 9.2: Model-Based Systems Engineering, version 4.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc, ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0.
OMG. MBSE Wiki. Available at: http://www.omgwiki.org/MBSE/doku.php.Accessed February 16, 2015.

References
[1] https:/ / www. incose. org/ about-systems-engineering/ se-vision-2035
Model-Based Systems Engineering Adoption

Trends 2009-2018
Lead Author: Rob Cloutier, Contributing Author: Ifezue Obiako
The MBSE Initiative was kicked off at the INCOSE International Workshop (IW) in 2007 at the Albuquerque, NM,
USA Embassy Suites. There were approximately 45 INCOSE members for this first meeting, held during the two
days preceding IW.
Surveys were conducted in 2009, 2012, 2014, 2018, and 2019 to better understand the adoption trends of
model-based systems engineering.
Introduction
Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is not a new concept. Wymore (1993) published the seminal work on the
topic. This book presents the mathematical theory behind MBSE. Since that time, engineering has made significant
movement from text-based approaches using office-based tools (e.g. Harvard Graphics, Microsoft PowerPoint,
Microsoft Visio, etc.) to an interconnected set of graphical diagrams. These diagrams are generally created in a tool
with a specialized graphical user interface.
Today aerospace engineers no longer use drafting boards to create their drawings – they use computer aided design
(CAD) tools. Likewise, software engineers seldom use EMACS or Vi (text editors), instead, they use software GUIs
that allow them to code, check syntax, compile, link, and run their software all in a single environment.
Broadly speaking, a model_ can be thought of as a facsimile or abstraction of reality. To this end, even a
requirements document can be considered a model – it represents what a real system should do in performing its
mission or role. While systems engineering has used models for a very long time, MBSE is the systems engineering
migration to computer-based graphical user interfaces to perform our analysis and design tasks just as our other
engineering brethren have moved to computer-based graphical user interfaces.
A discussion of available tools is beyond the scope of this article, and it is not the practice of the SEBoK to review or
promote specific tool offerings. However, it is fair to state that current MBSE tools fall into three broad categories:
1) Functional decomposition tools that use IDEF0 (also called IPO) diagrams, N2 diagrams, functional flow block
diagrams, etc., 2) Object-oriented tools that implement the Object Management Group’s Systems Modeling
Language (SysML), and 3) Mathematical modeling tools.
This migration for systems engineering might have begun in the late 90’s. The INCOSE INSIGHT publication
proclaimed that MBSE was a new paradigm (INSIGHT 1998). Cloutier (2004) addressed the migration from a
waterfall systems engineering approach to an object-oriented approach on the Navy Open Architecture project. At
that time, SysML did not exist, and the teams were using the Unified Modeling Language (UML) that was
predominately a software modeling tool. Zdanis & Cloutier (2007a, 2007b) addressed the use of activity diagrams
instead of sequence diagrams for systems engineering based on the newly released SysML. In 2009, the INCOSE
INSIGHT publication proclaimed MBSE was THE new paradigm (INSIGHT 2009).
Approach
In 2009, a survey was commissioned by the Object Management Group (OMG) with the intent of informing the
SysML Working Group on necessary changes to SysML since its first release (Cloutier & Bone 2010). That survey
focused on process more than adoption. Beginning in 2012, INCOSE has commissioned three more surveys to
understand adoption trends and obstacles. The survey instrument remained relatively unchanged for 2012, 2014, and
2018 (Cloutier 2015, Cloutier 2019a). In January of 2019, the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) conducted an MBSE
Workshop (Cloutier 2019b). A survey of those participants was conducted, and the intent of the questions was to
augment knowledge gained from the 2018 survey. The table below shows the number of respondents in each of the
surveys.
Table 1. MBSE Survey Purposes and Responses (SEBoK Original)

Year Survey Purpose Responses
2012 INCOSE MBSE Initiative 134
2019 JPL MBSE Workshop 98
Responses and Response Demographics

Each survey was sent to a diverse group of MBSE practitioners. Table 2 shows that of the 661 responses for the 2018
survey, 410 indicated their country of origin. This international representation is similar to all surveys conducted.
Table 1. MBSE Survey Purposes and Responses (Cloutier 2019, used with permission)
Country Responses Country Responses
USA 197 Israel 4
United Kingdom 52 Singapore 3
France 30 China 2
Germany 28 New Zealand 2
Australia 20 Poland 2
Netherlands 19 Russia 1
Japan 8 Romania 1
Canada 6 Turkey 1
Italy 6 Columbia 1
Sweden 6 Norway 1
South Africa 5 South Korea 1
Switzerland 4 UAE 1
Brazil 4 Belarus 1
India 4
As part of the demographics, Figure 1 shows the represented industries. Because the “Other” category was so large,
the data was analyzed to better understand Figure 2.
Figure 1. Industries Represented in the 2018 MBSE Survey. (Cloutier 2019a, used with permission)
Figure 2. "Other" Industries Represented in the 2018 MBSE Survey. (Cloutier 2019a, used with permission)
The 2018 survey indicated that there seems to be an increased application of MBSE in traditionally civil engineering
industries – specifically energy, infrastructure, and transportation (Figure 2) One of the most interesting aspects of
the 2018 survey is the finding that MBSE is being applied in the early phases of systems engineering, and less so in
the later phases as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. MBSE is More Likely to be Used in Early Stages of Systems Engineering. (Cloutier 2019a, used with permission)
This was confirmed by the JPL question “Where do we believe MBSE holds the most promise?” Figure 4 shows that
76% of the responses indicated system/subsystem architecting, 42% thought requirements analysis, and 39%
believed early conceptualization (note: the question allowed for multiple answers).
Figure 4. JPL Workshop Response Regarding "Where MBSE Holds the Most Promise." (Cloutier 2019b, used with
permission)
Figure 5. JPL Workshop Response Regarding "Is Your Modeling Experience Valued by Management?"(Cloutier
2019b, used with permission)
When asked whether the JPL survey respondents believed that their systems modeling experience is recognized as a
valued skill supporting career growth of systems engineers in their organization, just over 50% believed management
valued their experience. A smaller number, 21%, believed their modeling experience was not valued (Figure 5).
Key Adoption Trends

The remainder of this article will look at some of the trends identified across the surveys, from 2009 to 2018. Figure
6 shows that MBSE is moving from a defense and space dominated practice into other industries as discussed in
Figure 4.
Figure 6. Shift of MBSE Adoption in New Industries. (Cloutier 2019a, used with permission)
Model-based systems engineering seems to be expanding in influence in that it is not just in the purview of systems
engineers. While systems and software engineers find value in MBSE practices, Figure 6 demonstrates that the
customer is finding value in MBSE practices. It is also interesting that software engineers’ perceived value of MBSE
is declining from survey to survey.
Figure 7. Perceived Value of MBSE Practices to Different Project Segments. (Cloutier 2019a, used with permission)
Figure 8. Inhibitors to the Successful Adoption of MBSE within an Organization/Company. (Cloutier 2019a, used with permission)
Figure 8 demonstrates that availability of MBSE skills and cultural and general resistance to change have continued
to increase. Lack of perceived value reflects the findings in Figure 6 – software and hardware engineers are not
seeing the value of MBSE.
Conclusions
Surveys conducted between 2012 and 2018 demonstrate that MBSE practices are spreading beyond traditional
Defense and Space domains. Most MBSE practitioners are finding MBSE is most useful in the early project phases
of conceptualization, requirements analysis, and systems architecting. There continues to be a skills shortage, yet
companies/organizations are providing less training to improve MBSE skills. Both systems engineers, systems
engineering management, and the systems engineering customer are finding value in using models to perform
systems engineering.
References
Works Cited
Cloutier, R. 2004. "Migrating from a waterfall systems engineering approach to an object oriented approach –
Lessons learned," ICSE and INCOSE Region II Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, September 15, 2004.
Cloutier, R. and M. Bone. 2010. Compilation of SysML RFI- Final Report: Systems Modeling Language (SysML)
Request For Information. OMG Document: syseng/2009-06-01. Report date: 02/20/2010. Available at: http:/ / www.
omgwiki. org/ OMGSysML/ lib/ exe/ fetch. php?media=sysml-roadmap:omg_rfi_final_report_02_20_2010-1. pdf
Accessed October 24, 2019.
Cloutier, R. 2015. "Current modeling trends in systems engineering," INSIGHT, A Publication of the International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), vol. 18, no. 2.
Cloutier, R. 2019a. "2018 MBSE survey results," In Proceedings of the 2019 INCOSE MBSE Workshop, presented
at the INCOSE 2019 International Workshop, Torrance, CA, USA, January 26-29, 2019.
Cloutier, R. 2019b. "2019 JPL MBSE Survey Results," Presented at the 2019 Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) MBSE
Workshop, Pasadena, CA, USA, January 2019.
INSIGHT. 1998. Model-Based Systems Engineering: A New Paradigm. A Publication of the International Council
on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). Volume 1, Issue 3.
INSIGHT. 2009. Special Edition on Model-based Systems Engineering: The New Paradigm. A Publication of the
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). Volume 12, Issue 4.
Wymore, W. 1993. Model-Based Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Zdanis, L. and R. Cloutier. 2007. "The Use of Behavioral Diagrams in SysML." Hoboken, NJ: Stevens Institute of
Technology. Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER) 2007, 14-16 March 2007,
Hoboken, NJ, USA. ISBN 0-9787122-1-8.
Zdanis, L. and R. Cloutier. 2007. "The Use of Behavioral Diagrams in SysML." IEEE Long Island Systems,
Applications and Technology Conference, Farmingdale, NY, 2007, pp. 1-1. doi: 10.1109/LISAT.2007.4312634
Primary References
Bone, M. and R. Cloutier. 2010. "The current state of model based systems engineering: Results from the OMG™
SysML request for information 2009," in Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Systems Engineering Research
(CSER), Hoboken, NJ, USA, March 17-19, 2010. Available at: http:/ / www. omgsysml. org/
SysML_2009_RFI_Response_Summary-bone-cloutier.pdf.
Cloutier, R. and M. Bone. 2012. "MBSE survey 2," Presented at the International Council on Systems Engineering
(INCOSE) International Workshop, Jacksonville, FL, USA, January 21-24, 2012.
Cloutier, R. 2019a. "2018 MBSE survey results," In Proceedings of the 2019 INCOSE MBSE Workshop, presented
at the INCOSE 2019 International Workshop, Torrance, CA, USA, January 26-29, 2019.
Cloutier, R. 2019b. "2019 JPL MBSE survey results," Presented at the 2019 Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) MBSE
Workshop, Pasadena, CA, January 2019.
Batarseh, O., L. McGinnis, J. Lorenz. 2012. “MBSE supports manufacturing system design,” In Proceedings of the
22nd Annual International Council of Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, Rome, Italy, July
9-12, 2012. Paper ID: 2950.
Kernschmidt, K., B. Vogel-Heuser. 2013. "An interdisciplinary SysML based modeling approach for analyzing
change influences in production plants to support the engineering," In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International
Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), August 17-20, 2013. pp. 1113-1118. doi:
10.1109/CoASE.2013.6654030.
Gulan, S., S. Johr, R. Kretschmer, S. Rieger, M. Ditze. 2013. “Graphical modelling meets formal methods," In
Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), July 29-31, 2013. pp.
716-721. doi: 10.1109/INDIN.2013.6622972.
Hoffmann, H. 2012. "Streamlining the development of complex systems through model-based systems engineering,"
In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), October 14-18, 2012.
pp. 6E6-1, 6E6-8. doi: 10.1109/DASC.2012.6382404.
Paredis, C.J.J. et al. 2010. "An overview of the SysML-Modelica transformation specification," In Proceedings of the
2010 International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, Chicago, IL, USA, July
11-15, 2010.
Pihlanko, P., S. Sierla, K. Thramboulidis, M. Viitasalo. 2013. "An industrial evaluation of SysML: The case of a
nuclear automation modernization project," In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies
& Factory Automation (ETFA), September 10-13, 2013. pp. 1-8. doi: 10.1109/ETFA.2013.6647945.
Ramos, A.L., J.V. Ferreira, J. Barcelo. "Model-Based Systems Engineering: An Emerging Approach for Modern
Systems," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, vol. 42, no. 1,
pp. 101-111. doi: 10.1109/TSMCC.2011.2106495.

Digital Engineering
Lead Author: Ron Giachetti
The US Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Development released the US Department of Defense (DoD)
Digital Engineering Strategy in June 2018 describing five goals to streamline the DoD acquisition process through
the creation of a digital thread enabling the conception, design, and development of complex weapon systems (DoD
2018; Zimmerman 2017). The crux of digital engineering is the creation of computer readable models to represent all
aspects of the system and to support all the activities for the design, development, manufacture, and operation of the
system throughout its lifecycle. These computer models would have to be based on shared data schemata so that in
effect a digital thread integrates all the diverse stakeholders involved in the acquisition of new weapon systems. The
Digital Engineering Strategy anticipates digital engineering will lead to greater efficiency and improved quality of all
the acquisition activities.
Relationship with MBSE

Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is a subset of digital engineering. MBSE supports the systems
engineering activities of requirements, architecture, design, verification, and validation. These models would have to
be connected to the physics-based models used by other engineering disciplines such as mechanical and electrical
engineering. One challenge remaining for digital engineering is the integration of MBSE with physics-based models.
Foundation to digital engineering is the representation of the system data in a format sharable between all
stakeholders (Giachetti et al. 2015; Vaneman 2018). SysML 2.0 is one of several future developments promising to
provide a representation sufficient to support digital engineering. An ontology defining the entities and relationships
between them can be used to define the concepts relevant to systems engineering. Such a representation is necessary
to create the digital thread linking all the models together in a cohesive and useful manner.
Digital Engineering as a Transformation

For many organizations, digital engineering represents a transformation of how they normally conduct systems
engineering (e.g., see Bone et al. 2018) since most organizations conduct a document-intensive systems engineering
process. The adoption of digital engineering requires concomitant changes to how organizations perform system
engineering activities. Everything from documenting requirements, technical reviews, architecture design, and so
forth would be based on the models in a digital engineering environment (Vaneman and Carlson, 2019). The digital
thread would be the authoritative source of truth concerning the system data.
Digital Engineering 1214
Digital Twin
A digital twin is a related yet distinct concept to digital engineering. The digital twin is a high-fidelity model of the
system which can be used to emulate the actual system. An organization would be able to use a digital twin to
analyze design changes prior to incorporating them into the actual system.
References
Works Cited
Bone, M.A., M.R. Blackburn, D.H. Rhodes, D.N. Cohen, and J.A. Guerrero. 2018. "Transforming systems
engineering through digital engineering," The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation (2018):
1548512917751873.
DoD. 2018. DoD Digital Engineering Strategy. Washington, D.C., USA: Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering (OUSD R&E), US Department of Defense.
Giachetti, R.E. 2015. "Evaluation of the DoDAF meta-model's support of systems engineering," Procedia Computer
Science, vol. 61, pp. 254-260.
Vaneman, W.K. 2018. "Evolving model-based systems engineering ontologies and structures," Proceedings of the
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, Washington D.C., USA, July
7-12, 2018. Symposium Proceedings vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1027-1036.
Zimmerman, P. "DoD digital engineering strategy," Proceedings of the 20th Annual National Defense Industrial
Association (NDIA) Systems Engineering Conference, Springfield, VA, October 23-26, 2017.
Primary References
Bone, M.A., M.R. Blackburn, D.H. Rhodes, D.N. Cohen, and J.A. Guerrero. 2018 "Transforming systems
engineering through digital engineering," The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation (2018):
1548512917751873.
Singh, V. and K.E. Willcox. "Engineering design with digital thread," AIAA Journal, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 4515-4528.
Zimmerman, P. "DoD digital engineering strategy," Proceedings of the 20th Annual National Defense Industrial
Association (NDIA) Systems Engineering Conference, Springfield, VA, October 23-26, 2017. OUSD R&E, DoD
Digital Engineering Strategy, (June 2018).
None.
Relevant Videos
• Digital Engineering: MBSE Approach for DoD [1]

Set-Based Design
Lead Authors: Eric Specking, Gregory S. Parnell, and Ed Pohl
Set-based design (SBD) is a complex design method that enables robust system design by 1) considering a large
number of alternatives, 2) establishing feasibility before making decisions, and 3) using experts who design from
their own perspectives and use the intersection between their individual sets to optimize a design (Singer, Doerry,
and Buckley 2009). Model-based engineering (MBE)/model-based systems engineering (MBSE) with an integrated
framework can enable the use of SBD tradespace exploration, for some situations (i.e. early-design stage with low
fidelity models), in near-real time (Specking et al. 2018a). This article provides insights on using model-based design
to create and assess alternatives with set-based design.
Introduction
SBD analyzes sets of alternatives instead of single solutions. Sets are “two or more design points that have at least
one design option in common” (Specking et al. 2018b) or “the range of options for a design factor” (Singer et al.
2017). A design factor is a “solution parameter, characteristic, or relationship that influences the design at the system
level” (Singer et al. 2017). Systems engineers should develop sets determining the design factors and separating the
design factors into set drivers or set modifiers. Set drivers are “fundamental design decisions that define the system
characteristics that enable current and future missions,” while set modifiers are “design decisions that are ‘added on’
to the system and can be modified to adapt for new missions and scenarios” (Specking et al. 2018b).
SBD is not the best design method for every situation. SBD is particularly useful in early-stage design and if the
project contains the following attributes:
• A large number of design variables,
• Tight coupling among design variables,
• Conflicting requirements,
• Flexibility in requirements allowing for trades, or
• Technologies and design problems not well understood – learning required for a solution (Singer et al. 2017)
In early-stage design, SBD helps inform requirements analysis and assess design decisions (Parnell et al. 2019).
Quantitative SBD requires an integrated MBE environment to assess the effects of constraining and relaxing
requirements on the feasible tradespace. For example, Figure 2 demonstrates the effects of constraining or relaxing
requirements of an unmanned aerial vehicle case study with all of the explored designs in orange, the tradespace
affected by non-requirement constraints (e.g. physics with requirements relaxed to not affect the tradespace) in blue,
the original UAV feasible tradespace in yellow, and the relaxed (black)/constrained (red) tradespaces.
Figure 1. Effects of Requirements on the UAV's Feasible Tradespace (Parnell et al. 2019, used with permission)
The tornado diagram seen in Figure 3 shows results of a one requirement at a time analysis. This makes it easy to see
how the constraining/relaxing of each individual requirement affects the feasible tradespace. Figure 3 shows that the
requirements “Detect Human Activity at Night” and “Detect Human Activity in Daylight” have the greatest impact on
the feasible tradespace.
Figure 2. UAV Case Study Results of One-by-One Requirement Analysis (Parnell et al. 2019, used with permission)
Changing the requirements does not always translate to finding improved designs. The individual one requirement at
a time analysis scatterplot provides important information, as seen in an example illustration in Figure 4. It is
important to carefully analyze the Pareto Frontier created by each change (represented by a different color) and
compare it to the Pareto Frontier of the original analysis. If the original requirement level produces better
alternatives, then it does not make sense to change (constrain or relax) the requirement.
Figure 3. Effect on Feasible Tradespace by Changing Most Sensitive UAV Requirement (Specking et al. 2019, used with permission)
Additionally, using SBD can add value to the overall project and team. Some of the advantages include:
• enabling reliable, efficient communications,
• allowing much greater parallelism in the process, with much more effective use of subteams early in the process,
• allowing the most critical, early decisions to be based on data, and
• promoting institutional learning (Ward et al. 1995).
System Analyst Set-Based Design Tradespace Exploration Process

Figure 4 illustrates SBD as a concept for system design and analysis. This SBD illustration contains 5 distinct
characteristics:
1. start by determining the business/mission needs and system requirements;
2. use the business/mission needs and system requirements to perform design and analysis techniques throughout
time in the exploratory, concept, and development stages of the system’s life cycle;
3. perform design and analysis concurrently as much as possible;
4. inform requirement analysis by using feasibility, performance, and cost data; and
5. consider a large number of alternatives through the use of sets and slowly converge to a single point solution
(Specking et al. 2019).
Figure 4. SBD Conceptual Framework for Systems Design (Specking et al. 2019, used with permission)
SBD is a social-technical process and should involve input and interactions from several teams, but Figure 6
provides a SBD tradespace exploration process for system analysts (Specking et al. 2019). This eight-step process is
especially useful to perform early-stage design (Specking et al. 2018b). The system analyst starts by analyzing the
business/mission needs and system requirements. Systems engineers use this information, along with models and
simulations developed by themselves or provided by systems and subsystem teams, to develop an integrated model.
Systems engineers include requirements to assess feasible and infeasible alternatives using this integrated model.
They explore the tradespace by treating each design decision as a uniform (discrete or continuous) random variable.
An alternative consists of an option from every design decision. Systems engineers then use the integrated model to
evaluate each alternative and to create the feasible tradespace. Monte Carlo simulation is one method that enables a
timely alternative creation and evaluation process. The created tradespace will consist of infeasible and feasible
alternatives based upon the requirements and any physics-based performance models and simulations. Systems
engineers should work with the appropriate stakeholders to inform requirements when the tradespace produces a
significantly small number of or no feasible alternatives. In addition to feasibility, systems engineers should also
analyze each design decision by using descriptive statistics and other analyses and data analytics techniques. This
information provides insights into how each design factor influences the feasible tradespace. Once the tradespace
contains an acceptable number of alternatives, it is then classified by sets. This is an essential part of SBD. If the set
drivers or design factors are not known, systems engineers should view the tradespace by each design decision for
insights. Systems engineers should use dominance analysis and other optimization methods to find optimal or near
optimal alternatives based upon the measures of effectiveness. Systems engineers should explore the remaining sets
for additional insights on the feasible tradespace and the requirements. The final part of this process is to select one
or more sets to move to the next design-stage. It should be noted that this process contains cycles. At any part of this
process, systems engineers should use the available information, such as from tradespace exploration or set
evaluation, to inform requirement analysis or update the integrated model. Additionally, the systems engineer should
update the integrated model with higher fidelity models and simulations as they become available. The key is to have
the “right” information from the “right” people at the “right” time.
Figure 5. System Analysts SBD Tradespace Exploration Process

(Specking et al. 2019, used with permission)
References
Works Cited
Parnell, G.S., E. Specking, S. Goerger, M. Cilli, and E. Pohl. 2019. “Using set-based design to inform system
requirements and evaluate design decisions.” Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, Orlando, FL, USA, July 20-25, 2019.
Singer, D.J., N. Doerry, and M. E. Buckley. 2009. “What is set-based design?” Naval Engineers Journal, vol. 121,
no. 4, pp. 31–43.
Singer, D., J. Strickland, N. Doerry, T. McKenney, and C. Whitcomb. 2017. “Set-based design.” SNAME T&R
Bulletin SNAME (mt) Marine Technology Technical and Research Bulletin.
Specking, E., C. Whitcomb, G. Parnell, S. Goerger, E. Kundeti, and N. Pohl. 2018a. “Literature review: Exploring
the role of set-based design in trade-off analytics,” Naval Engineers Journal, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 51-62.
Specking, E., G. Parnell, E. Pohl, and R. Buchanan. 2018b. “Early design space exploration with model-based
system engineering and set-based design,” IEEE Systems, vol. 6, no. 4, pg. 45.
Ward, A., I. Durward Sobek, J. C. John, and K. L. Jeffrey. 1995. “Toyota, concurrent engineering, and set-based
design,” in Engineered in Japan: Japanese Technology-management Practices. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press. pp. 192–216.
Primary References
None.
None.

System of Systems and Complexity

Lead Author: Judith Dahmann
Systems of Systems are generally characterized as complex (Sheard, 2019) (Luzeau et al.,2011) (Simpson, 2009)
(DeLaurentis, 2007) (Ireland, 2014) (Magee, 2004), as is noted in the systems of systems (SoS) knowledge area of
the SEBoK.
The question for those seeking to perform SoS Engineering (SoSE) then is how to address/use SoS complexity? In
an ongoing collaboration between the INCOSE SoS and Complexity Working Groups, recent work on characterizing
complexity has been applied to SoS, to assess how and why SoS exhibit complexity, as the basis for identifying
approaches from the complexity community to applications of systems principles to systems of systems. This
collaboration was spurred by recent work in both communities on concepts to understand how complexity affects
systems of systems (Watson, 2020) and guiding principles to complexity thinking can be applied in Systems of
Systems Engineering. (INCOSE, 2016)
Complexity Dimensions Applied to Systems of Systems

How and why are systems of systems (SoS) characterized by different dimensions of complexity? Drawing on the
dimensions of complexity (Watson, 2019) it is clear that by their nature SoS are rich in complexity, as described
below. For each complexity dimension, the dimension is defined and the characteristics of SoS which make them
subject to this dimension are briefly presented. Diversity “encompasses the structural, behavior, and system state
varieties that characterize a system and/or its environment.” (Watson, 2019) By their nature, SoS are composed of
independent systems. (Maier, 1998) (ISO, 2019) SoS can exhibit tremendous diversity across the constituent systems
which provide a range of behaviors, functionality, and technical approaches. SoS are comprised of multiple
independent systems with their own users, management structures, requirements etc. often developed prior to their
membership in an SoS, increasing the likelihood of diversity among the constituents of a SoS.
Connectivity “characterizes connection of the system between its functions and the environment. This connectivity is
characterized by the number of nodes, diversity of node types, number of links, and diversity in link characteristics.”
(Watson, 2019) SoS include connectivity within each constituent system, among SoS constituents and between the
SoS and its environment. Discontinuities (breaks in a pattern of connectivity at one or more layers) are often found
in SoS. This links directly to dimensions of ‘Interactivity’ and ‘disproportionate effects’, since connectivity may lead
to complex cascading interactions. Adaptability is defined as the characteristics of complex systems which
“proactively and/or reactively change function, relationships, and behavior to balance changes in environment and
application to achieve system goals.” (Watson, 2019) SoS are composed of operationally independent systems [3];
hence the operators of each of system has their own rules of engagement and may react or adapt to changes in
different ways based on their local objectives.
Multi-perspective refers to the fact that “multiple perspectives, some of which are orthogonal, are required to
comprehend the complex system.” (Watson, 2019) SoS are typically comprised of multiple independent systems
which were developed and operated prior to the existence of the SoS; hence they each bring with them their own
perspectives, which may or may not be aligned with the SoS. An understanding of the SoS considers all of these
different perspectives. This links directly to the dimension of ‘Multi-scale’ since SoS may contain constituent
systems of varying scales.
Complex system behavior “cannot be described fully as a response system. Complex system behavior includes
nonlinearities. Optimizing system behavior cannot often be done focusing on properties solely within the system.”
(Watson, 2019) While the behaviors of the individual systems may be predictable, particularly when the numbers of
systems are large and have multiple internal behaviors, SoS behavior can become unpredictable. Each constituent
has been designed to be operated independently and safely within its own context. without regard to the potential
impact on the behavior of itself, on other systems and on overall SoS behavior.
Dynamics in “complex systems may have equilibrium states or may have no equilibrium state. Complex system
dynamics have multiple scales or loops. Complex systems can stay within the dynamical system or generate new
system states or state transitions due to internal system changes, external environment changes, or both.” (Watson,
2019) Following the discussion of behavior, these effects can be dynamic and impact other systems or have feedback
loops leading to dynamic complexity. Notably, constituent systems may not only be managed independently, but
they may also operate independently, increasing prospects of dynamic complexity.
Representations of “complex systems can be difficult to properly construct with any depth. It is often impossible to
predict future configurations, structures, or behaviors of a complex system, given finite resources. Causal &
influence networks create a challenge in developing 'requisite' conceptual models within these time and information
resource constraints.” (Watson, 2019) One feature of SoS is that boundary conditions can be hard to define, which
includes not only which constituent systems are members of an SoS, but also which behaviors of a constituent
system play a role in the SoS making representation of an SoS a challenge. Evolution is a dimension of complexity
as “changes over time in complex system states and structures (physical and behavioral) can result from various
causes. Complex system states and structures are likely to change as a result of interactions within the complex
system, with the environment, or in application. A complex system can have disequilibrium (i.e., non-steady) states
and continue to function.” (Watson, 2019) Rarely do we ‘develop and field’ an SoS, rather SoS are typically
composed of existing systems; changes in an SoS result from changes in one or more of the constituent systems (or
in the environment), making SoS development an evolutionary process.
System emergence leading to unpredictable behavior is driven by unexpected emergence; “emergent properties of the
holistic system unexpected (whether predictable or unpredictable) in the system functionality/response.
Unpredictable given finite resources. Behavior not describable as a response system.” (Watson, 2019) By definition,
SoS are comprised of multiple independent systems. (Maier, 1998) (ISO, 2019). Changes in one system could lead to
new behavior in another, leading to unpredictable results. Indeterminate boundaries result from the fact that
“complex system boundaries are intricately woven with their environment and other interacting systems. Their
boundaries can be non-deterministic. The boundary cannot be distinguished based solely on processes inside the
system.” (Watson, 2019) One feature of SoS is that boundary conditions can be hard to define, including which
constituent systems should be included in representation of an SoS, and which behaviors of a constituent play a role
in the SoS.
Guiding Principles to Complexity Thinking Applied in Systems of Systems

Engineering
The INCOSE Complexity Primer (INCOSE, 2016) outlines guiding principles to complexity thinking. As SoS
exhibit complexity as discussed above, the next question is how these principles might then be applied to SoS.
Think like a gardener, not a watchmaker: “Consider the complexity of the environment and the solution and think
about evolving a living solution to the problem rather than constructing a system from scratch.” (INCOSE, 2016)
SoS are often composed of current and new systems which support desired SoS capabilities and have evolved
through interaction. Understanding these ‘natural’ interaction effects can be important in understanding the responses
of constituent systems to various interventions.
Combine courage with humility: “It takes courage to acknowledge complexity, relinquish control, encourage variety,
and explore unmapped territory. It takes humility to accept irreducible uncertainty, to be skeptical of existing
knowledge, and to be open to learning from failure. A combination of courage and humility enables the complex
systems engineer to risk genuine innovation and learn fast from iterative prototyping of solutions in context.”
(INCOSE, 2016) This principle aligns with the recognition in SoS, the SoS engineer is moving into new territory
where there are large differences between the degree of control, the diversity of system technical and functional
capabilities, and multiple overlapping authorities.
Take an adaptive stance: “Systems engineers should mimic how living systems cope with complexity by identifying
and creating variation, selecting the best versions, and amplify the fit of the selected versions. This means, for
example, to think “influence” and “intervention” rather than “control” and “design.” (INCOSE, 2016) For most SoS,
the successful SoS engineer recognizes that influence and intervention are the name of the game, since to a large
extent control continues to rest with the constituents, and SoS architecture and design needs to accommodate the
state of the constituent systems while addressing SoS capability objectives. Identify and use patterns: “Patterns are
exhibited by complex systems, can be observed and understood, and are a key mechanism in the engineering of
complex systems. Patterns are the primary means of dealing specifically with emergence and side effects—that is,
the means of inducing desired emergence and side effects, and the means of avoiding undesired emergence and side
effects.” (INCOSE, 2016) Understanding systems, their behaviors and interactions is a core element of SoSE. By
modeling these and treating them as opportunities, patterns can be an effective SoSE approach.
Zoom in and zoom out: Because complex systems cannot be understood at a single scale of analysis, systems
engineers must develop the habit of looking at their project at many different scales, by iteratively zooming in and
zooming out.” (INCOSE, 2016) Effective SoSE is often called a ‘middle out’ process, where there is a need to
understand the top-down drivers for the SoS, but also to respect the bottoms-up needs and capabilities of the
constituents. Dynamics between these two perspectives reflects this ‘zoom in and zoom out’ principle in SoSE
thinking.
Achieve Balance: “Optimization is often counterproductive within a complex system. Either the whole is
sub-optimized when a part is optimized, or an optimized whole becomes rigid, unable to flex with changing
conditions. Instead of optimizing, complex systems engineers should seek balance among competing tensions within
the project. Systems engineers can leverage integrative thinking to generate improved solutions and avoid binary
either/or tradeoffs.“ (INCOSE, 2016) In SoSE, if you are trying to ‘optimize’ you probably don’t understand the
situation. Multiple, often competing, objectives of the SoS and the constituents, requires options which continue to
meet the constituent objectives but also address SoS capabilities. This links directly to both the ‘Collaborate’ and ‘See
through new eyes’ principles.
Learn from problems: “In a changing context, with an evolving system, where elements are densely interconnected,
problems and opportunities will continually emerge. Moreover, they will emerge in surprising ways, due to phase
transitions, cascading failures, fat tailed distributions, and black swan events.” (INCOSE, 2016) SoS development is
recognized as evolutionary (Maier, 1998). One life cycle approach, the SoS ‘Wave Model’ (Dahmann, 2011)
explicitly sees each iteration of SoS evolution as starting with assessment of changes since the last wave, recognizing
the importance of learning from problems and adapting.

Meta-cognition: “Meta-cognition, or reflecting on how one reflects, helps to identify bias, make useful patterns of
thinking more frequent, and improve understanding of a complex situation.” (INCOSE, 2016) One of the SoS pain
points (Dahmann, 2010) is the need for “SoS Thinking’ – a form of meta-cognition.
Focus on desired regions of outcome space rather than specifying detailed outcomes: “Instead of zeroing in on an
exact solution, focus on what range of solutions will have the desired effects, and design to keep out of forbidden
ranges.” (INCOSE, 2016) It is important to define SoS needs in terms of broad capabilities (versus detailed solutions)
since there are a larger number of factors to be considered in an SoS. In SoS terminology, the SoS ‘requirements
space’ reflects this perspective.
Understand what motivates autonomous agents: “Changing rewards will shape collective behavior. Implement
incentives that will move the system toward a more desired state.” (INCOSE, 2016) A core element of SoSE (DoD,
2008) is to understand constituent systems and their relationships including the objectives and long-term goals for
these systems. This provides the basis for assessing of changes systems will welcome, and potential for motivating
constituents to provide needed SoS functionality and services aligned with their goals. This links directly to the “Use
Free order’ principle emphasizing value of promoting self-organization in complex systems.
Maintain adaptive feedback loops: “Adaptive systems correct for output variations via a feedback mechanism. Over
time, feedback loops can either hit the limit of their control space or may be removed in the interest of maintaining
stability. To maintain robustness, periodically revisit feedback and ensure that adaptation can still occur.” (INCOSE,
2016) As noted above, under the SoS wave model (Dahmann, 2011) is constructed around this principle as applied to
the SoS development and evolution life cycle. Integrate problems: “Focus on the relationships among problems
rather than addressing each problem separately. This allows fewer solutions that take care of multiple problems in an
integrative fashion.” (INCOSE, 2016) In SoS methods (Cook, 2014) including the SoS Wave Model (Dahmann
2010) and the DoD SoS SE Guide, (DoD, 2008) there is an emphasis on understanding the full SoS context, enabling
understanding connections, patterns, and opportunities for this type of integrated view.
References
Works Cited
Cook, S.C. and J.M. Pratt. 2014. “Towards designing innovative SoSE approaches for the Australian defence force.”
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Systems of Systems Engineering Socio-Technical Perspectives
(SoSE 2014). pp. 295–300, 2014.
Dahmann, J., G. Rebovich, J. Lane, R. Lowry, and K. Baldwin. 2011. "An Implementer's View of Systems
Engineering for Systems of Systems." IEEE Systems Conference, April 4-7, 2011, Montreal, Canada. p. 212-217.
Dahmann, J. 2015. "Systems of Systems Pain Points". International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
International Symposium, 2015, Seattle, WA.
DoD. 2008. Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems, version 1.0. Washington, DC, USA: US Department
of Defense (DoD). Accessed 2 /26/2022. Available: https:/ / acqnotes. com/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2014/ 09/
DoD-Systems-Engineering-Guide-for-Systems-of-Systems-Aug-2008.pdf.
DeLaurentis, D. 2007. "Role of Humans in Complexity of Systems of Systems." In V.G. Duffy (Ed.): Digital Human
Modeling, HCII 2007, LNCS 4561, pp. 363–371. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
INCOSE. 2016. A Complexity Primer for Systems Engineers. TP-2016-001-01.0.
INCOSE, 2018. Systems of Systems Primer, INCOSE-TP-2018-003-01.0.
INCOSE, 2020. Systems of Systems Standards Quick reference Guide, INCOSE -2020 -sosstandards.
Ireland, V. 2014. “SoS Benefiting from Complex Systems Research.in Complex Adaptive Systems, Publication 4.
Cihan Dagli (Ed) Conference Organized by Missouri University of Science and Technology. Philadelphia, PA.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2019. ISO/IEC/IEEE 21839 — Systems and Software
Engineering—System of systems considerations in life cycle stages of a system.
Luzeau, D, J-R Rualt, and J-L Wippler (Eds). 2011. Complex Systems and Systems of Systems Engineering. ISTE
Ltd, and John Wiley and Sons. Great Britain and UAS.
Magee, C.I. and O.L. deWeck. "Complex System Classification." International Council on Systems Engineering
(INCOSE) International Symposium, 20–24 June 2004, Toulouse, France,
Sheard, S. 2019. "Complexity in a Systems of Systems Context." International Council on Systems Engineering
(INCOSE) International Symposium, 20-25 July 2018, Orlando, FL.
Simpson J. J. and M. J. Simpson.2009. "System of systems complexity identification and control," 2009 IEEE
International Conference on System of Systems Engineering (SoSE), pp. 1-6.
Watson, M., R. Anway, D. McKinney, L.A. Rosser, and J. MacCarthy. 2019. "Appreciative Methods Applied to the
Assessment of Complex Systems." International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International
Symposium, 20-25 July 2018, Orlando, FL.
Primary References
Watson, M., R. Anway, D. McKinney, L.A. Rosser, and J. MacCarthy. 2019. "Appreciative Methods Applied to the
Assessment of Complex Systems." International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International
Symposium, 20-25 July 2018, Orlando, FL.
INCOSE. 2016. A Complexity Primer for Systems Engineers. TP-2016-001-01.0.
None.

1225
Emerging Research
Emerging Research
Lead Authors: Robert Cloutier, Arthur Pyster
The Emerging Research topic under the SEBoK Emerging Knowledge is a place to showcase some of the systems
engineering research published in the past 3-5 years.
Doctoral Dissertations
Doctoral level systems engineering research has taken root over the last two decades. Additionally, many institutions
have either an Industrial Engineering or Systems Engineering Master’s program. This has enabled new and
interesting research to be conducted. Here you will find bibliographic citations and summaries for recently defended
research.
Towards Early Lifecycle Prediction of System Reliability

Salter, C. “Towards early lifecycle prediction of system reliability,” Ph.D. dissertation University of South Alabama,
Mobile, Alabama, July 2018. Available: ProQuest Store [1]
Reliability is traditionally defined as “the probability that an item will perform a required function without failure
under stated conditions for a stated period of time” (O'Connor, 2012). This definition is applicable to all levels of a
system, from the smallest part to the system as a whole. Predicting reliability requires extensive knowledge of the
system of interest, thus making prediction difficult and complex. This problem is further complicated by the desire to
predict system reliability early in the acquisition lifecycle. This work set out to develop a model for the prediction of
system reliability early in the system lifecycle. The model utilizes eight factors: number of system requirements,
number of major interfaces, number of operational environments, requirements understanding, technology maturity,
manufacturability, company experience, and performance convergence. These factors come together to form a model
much like the software engineering and systems engineering models COCOMO and COSYSMO. This work
provides the United States Department of Defense a capability that previously did not exist: the estimation of system
reliability early in the system lifecycle. The research demonstrates that information available during early system
development may be used to predict system reliability. Through testing, the author found that a model of this type
could provide reliability predictions for military ground vehicles within 25% of their actual recorded reliability
values.
Toward the Evolution of Information Digital Ecosystems

Lippert, K. “Toward the evolution of information digital ecosystems,” Ph.D dissertation, University of South
Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, May 2018. Available: ProQuest Store [2].
Digital ecosystems are the next generation of Internet and network applications, promising a whole new world of
distributed and open systems that can interact, self-organize, evolve, and adapt. These ecosystems transcend
traditional collaborative environments, such as client-server, peer-to-peer, or hybrid models (e.g., web services) to
become a self-organized, interactive environment. The complexity of these digital ecosystems will encourage
evolution through adaptive processes and selective pressures of one member on another to satisfy interaction,
adaptive organization, and, incidentally, human curiosity. This work addresses one of the essential parts of the digital
ecosystem – the information architecture. The research, inspired by systems thinking influenced by both biological
models and science fiction, applies the TRIZ method to the contradictions raised by evolving data. This inspired the
application of patterns and metaphor as a means for coping with the evolution of the ecosystem. The metaphor is
explored as a model of representation of rapidly changing information through a demonstration of an adaptive digital
ecosystem. The combination of this type of data representation with dynamic programming and adaptive interfaces
will enable the development of the various components required by a true digital ecosystem.
Cybersecurity Decision Patterns as Adaptive Knowledge Encoding in Cybersecurity

Operations
Willett, K. “Cybersecurity decision patterns as adaptive knowledge encoding in cybersecurity operations”, Ph.D.
dissertation, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, July 2016. Available: https:/ / pqdtopen. proquest. com/
doc/1875237837.html?FMT=ABS.
Cyberspace adversaries perform successful exploits using automated adaptable tools. Cyberspace defense is too slow
because existing response solutions require humans in-the-loop across sensing, sense-making, decision-making,
acting, command, and control of security operations (Dōne et al. 2016). Security automation is necessary to provide
for cyber defense dynamic adaptability in response to an agile adversary with intelligence and intent who adapts
quickly to exploit new vulnerabilities and new safeguards. The rules for machine-encoding security automation must
come from people; from their knowledge validated through their real-world experience. Cybersecurity Decision
Patterns as Adaptive Knowledge Encoding in Cybersecurity Operations introduces cybersecurity decision patterns
(CDPs) as formal knowledge representation to capture, codify, and share knowledge to introduce and enhance
security automation with the intent to improve cybersecurity operations efficiency for processing anomalies.
INCOSE & IEEE Periodicals and Events

Every year, the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) holds one International Workshop and one
International Symposium, as well as regular meetings of various working groups, to encourage discussions of
emerging needs and sharing of experience within Systems Engineering community. All papers and presentations
from these events are available for free for INCOSE members, or with a fee for non-members via Wiley. The library
can be access here: https://www.incose.org/products-and-publications/papers-presentations-library#
Additionally, INCOSE also publish periodicals, which include: Systems Engineering (SE Journal), INSIGHT
(magazine), and INCOSE Members Newsletter. These periodicals are available as PDF, free for INCOSE members
and with a fee for non-members, or as hard copies. More information can be found here: https:/ / www. incose. org/
products-and-publications/periodicals
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Systems Council also holds multiple annual
conferences, such as the International Systems Conference (SysCon), on systems engineering, resulting in a large
pool of publications. These publications can be found via: https://ieeesystemscouncil.org/publications
NSF- and SERC-funded Research

The National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) has
been funding research in academia on systems engineering under Engineering Design and Systems Engineering
(EDSE) program. According to NSF-EDSE website [3], the program "seeks proposals leading to improved
understanding about how processes, organizational structure, social interactions, strategic decision making, and other
factors impact success in the planning and execution of engineering design and systems engineering projects".
Research under this program can be found via Award Search feature on NSF website: https:/ / www. nsf. gov/
awardsearch/advancedSearch.jsp (Enter "CMMI" for NSF Organization and "EDSE" for Program).
The Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) is a University-Affiliated Research Center of the US Department
of Defense, consisting of 22 collaborator universities in the US and funding research on different aspects of Systems
Engineering, including Enterprises and System of Systems, Trusted Systems, Systems Engineering and Systems
Management Transformation. More information can be found here: https:/ / sercuarc. org/ serc-programs-projects/
esos/
References
None.
< Previous Article | Parent Article | Last Article (Return to TOC)

References
[1] https:/ / order. proquest. com/ OA_HTML/ pqdtibeCAcdLogin.
jsp;jsessionid=e0c74b22f5dff64bf4a20c1deef606a0397a02e9aa59ec701b81e5d7cde90387.
e34PbxmRc3qPbO0Lbx4Nc3yMbxiNe0?ref=https%3A%2F%2Forder. proquest. com%2FOA_HTML%2FpqdtibeCCtpItmDspRte.
jsp%3Fdlnow%3D1%26item%3D10840641%26rpath%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fsearch. proquest.
com%252Fpqdtglobal%252Fredirectfor%253Faccountid%253D14541%26track%3D1SRCH& sitex=10020:22372:US&
sitex=10020:22372:US
[2] https:/ / order. proquest. com/ OA_HTML/ pqdtibeCAcdLogin. jsp?ref=https%3A%2F%2Forder. proquest.
com%2FOA_HTML%2FpqdtibeCCtpItmDspRte.
jsp%3Fdlnow%3D1%26item%3D10790760%26rpath%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fsearch. proquest.
com%252Fpqdtglobal%252Fredirectfor%253Faccountid%253D14541%26track%3D1SRCH& sitex=10020:22372:US&
sitex=10020:22372:US
[3] https:/ / www. nsf. gov/ funding/ pgm_summ. jsp?pims_id=505478& org=ENG& from=home
Article Sources and Contributors

Editor's Corner Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70348 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cnielsen, Dholwell, Eleach, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Radcock, Rcloutier, Smenck2,
Wikiexpert
Governance and Editorial Boards Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69397 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Gsmith, Jtcarter, Kguillemette,
Mhaas, Radcock, Rcloutier, Smenck2, WikiWorks, WikiWorks753
Acknowledgements and Release History Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70353 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Ddori, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dnewbern, Eleach, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rcloutier, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
SEBoK Sponsors Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69246 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, WikiWorks, WikiWorks753
Bkcase Wiki:Copyright Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69282 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Kguillemette, Radcock, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
SEBoK Table of Contents Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70339 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Daniel Robbins, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell,
Kguillemette, Nicole.hutchison, Smenck2, Thilburn, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
SEBoK Introduction Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69900 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Janthony,
Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rcloutier, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Introduction to the SEBoK Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69739 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock, Rcloutier, WikiWorks
Scope of the SEBoK Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69854 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Groedler, Janthony, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rcloutier, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Structure of the SEBoK Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69598 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rcloutier, Sfriedenthal, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Introduction to Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69788 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock, Rcloutier, WikiWorks
Systems Engineering Overview Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70038 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Mhaas, Radcock, Rcloutier,
Smenck2, WikiWorks
Fundamentals for Digital Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69605 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman
Economic Value of Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69354 Contributors: Apyster, Asofer, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Eleach,
Gparnell, Janthony, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rvalerdi, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
A Brief History of Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=66830 Contributors: Bkcase
Systems Engineering: Historic and Future Challenges Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69572 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Radcock, Rcloutier, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Engineering and Other Disciplines Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69403 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Rcloutier, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Fundamentals for Future Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69377 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock, WikiWorks
SEBoK Users and Uses Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70344 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Guidance for Systems Engineering Novices Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70299 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dholwell, Mhaas, Radcock, WikiWorks
Guidance for Systems Engineers Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70343 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Radcock, Rmadachy, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Guidance for Engineers Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70309 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Rmadachy, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Guidance for Systems Engineering Customers Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70329 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Radcock, Rmadachy, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Guidance for Educators and Researchers Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70335 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rmadachy, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Guidance for General Managers Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70321 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Rmadachy, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Foundations of Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69561 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdagli, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dcarey, Dhenry,
Dholwell, Eleach, Gsmith, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Engineering Fundamentals Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70187 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Gsmith, Janthony, Jdahmann,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Introduction to Systems Engineering Fundamentals Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69708 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen,
Ddori, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Gsmith, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Engineering Core Concepts Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70229 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Gsmith, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Systems Engineering Principles Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=65811 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Gsmith, Mhaas
Systems Engineering Heuristics Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69615 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, WikiWorks
The Nature of Systems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69465 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Gsmith, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Types of Systems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69467 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gsmith, Janthony, Jdahmann,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Cycles and the Cyclic Nature of Systems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69686 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Gsmith, Mhaas, Rcloutier
Systems Science Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69647 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Gsmith, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
History of Systems Science Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69669 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Approaches Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=64518 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Gsmith, Janthony, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Complexity Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69765 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gsmith, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Emergence Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69480 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Gsmith, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock,
Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Systems Thinking Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69582 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
What is Systems Thinking? Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70121 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Radcock, Rturner, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Concepts of Systems Thinking Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69995 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Principles of Systems Thinking Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69530 Contributors: Bkcase, Bsauser, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Patterns of Systems Thinking Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70004 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dnewbern, Janthony, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock,
Smenck2, WikiWorks
Representing Systems with Models Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70037 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Ddori, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Eleach,
Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Radcock, Sfriedenthal, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
What is a Model? Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70283 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Ddori, Dhenry, Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Rcloutier, Sfriedenthal, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Why Model? Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70285 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Sfriedenthal, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Types of Models Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70274 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Sfriedenthal, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Modeling Concepts Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70261 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Ddori, Dhenry, Dnewbern, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Sfriedenthal, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Integrating Supporting Aspects into System Models Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69972 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Eleach, Mhaas, Smenck2,
WikiWorks, Ymordecai
Modeling Standards Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70126 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dcarey, Ddori, Dhenry, Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Sfriedenthal, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69584 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dcarey, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dnewbern, Eleach, Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Sjackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Overview of the Systems Approach Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69992 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dcarey, Dhenry, Dnewbern, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Sjackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Engineered System Context Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69731 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Identifying and Understanding Problems and Opportunities Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69760 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rturner, Sjackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Synthesizing Possible Solutions Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69581 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rturner, Sjackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Analysis and Selection between Alternative Solutions Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69351 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Implementing and Proving a Solution Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69809 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Radcock, Sjackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Deploying, Using, and Sustaining Systems to Solve Problems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69571 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Bwells, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry,
Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rturner, Sjackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Applying the Systems Approach Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69487 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Sjackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Systems Engineering and Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70192 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Csingam, Dcarey, Dhenry,
Dholwell, Dnewbern, Dward, Groedler, Janthony, Jgercken, Jtcarter, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rmadachy, Sfriedenthal, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Engineering STEM Overview Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70235 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69966 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Jtcarter, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Systems Lifecycle Approaches Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69691 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock, Sfriedenthal, WikiWorks
Generic Life Cycle Model Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70215 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Applying Life Cycle Processes Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70195 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock
Life Cycle Processes and Enterprise Need Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69750 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock, WikiWorks
System Lifecycle Models Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69916 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dcarey, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern,
Janthony, Jgercken, Kforsberg, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, PMarbach, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Lifecycle Process Drivers and Choices Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70055 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dcarey, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken, Kforsberg, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, PMarbach, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Lifecycle Process Models: Vee Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70066 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken,
Kforsberg, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, PMarbach, Rmadachy, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
System Lifecycle Process Models: Incremental Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70240 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken,
Kforsberg, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, PMarbach, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
System Life Cycle Process Models: Agile Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69470 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, PMarbach, WikiWorks
Process Integration Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69542 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2,
WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Lean Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69894 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Mhaas, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Engineering Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70184 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Rmadachy, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Technical Planning Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70273 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Rmadachy, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Assessment and Control Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69767 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Rmadachy, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Decision Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69590 Contributors: Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Eleach, Gparnell, Groedler,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Risk Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69869 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Configuration Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69884 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rcloutier, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Information Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70154 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Rmadachy, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Quality Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70025 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Measurement Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70010 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cjones, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Rcarson, Rmadachy, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Business and Mission Analysis Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69384 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Eleach, Groedler, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock,
Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Business or Mission Analysis Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69414 Contributors: Afaisandier, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Groedler, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Stakeholder Needs Definition Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70146 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Eleach, Groedler, Janthony,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Stakeholder Requirements Definition Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70259 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Asofer, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cjones, Dhenry,
Dholwell, Eleach, Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Logical Architecture Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69768 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Eleach,
Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Physical Architecture Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69820 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dnewbern, Eleach, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Detailed Design Definition Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69551 Contributors: Afaisandier, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock, WikiWorks
System Analysis Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69963 Contributors: Afaisandier, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock,
Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
System Realization Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70219 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Eleach, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
System Implementation Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70021 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
System Integration Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70044 Contributors: Afaisandier, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Verification Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69404 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Jgercken, Kguillemette,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Transition Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70123 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin,
Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Validation Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70115 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Operation Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70208 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Jgercken, Ldecardenas, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Skmackin, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Maintenance Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70242 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Ddorgan, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Jgercken, Mhaas, Skmackin,
WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Logistics Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69512 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2,
WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Service Life Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69726 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Skmackin, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Service Life Extension Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70266 Contributors: Asquires, Bkcase, Bwells, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Capability Updates, Upgrades, and Modernization Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69392 Contributors: Asquires, Bkcase, Bwells, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dnewbern, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
System Disposal and Retirement Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69919 Contributors: Asquires, Bkcase, Bwells, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Skmackin, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Systems Engineering Standards Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69911 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Relevant Standards Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69484 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette,
Kzemrowski, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Sfriedenthal, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Alignment and Comparison of Systems Engineering Standards Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69657 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dnewbern, Groedler, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Application of Systems Engineering Standards Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69365 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Groedler, Janthony,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Applications of Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69837 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dcarey, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Product Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69520 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dcarey, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Rlpineda, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Product Systems Engineering Background Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70262 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Rlpineda, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Product as a System Fundamentals Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69492 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Rlpineda, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Business Activities Related to Product Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69997 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Rlpineda, Wikiexpert
Product Systems Engineering Key Aspects Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70060 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette,
Product Systems Engineering Special Activities Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70011 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Rlpineda, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Service Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70091 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Rlpineda, Rturner, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Service Systems Background Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70116 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette,
Fundamentals of Services Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69371 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Rlpineda, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Properties of Services Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69629 Contributors: Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas,
Rlpineda, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Scope of Service Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70177 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Rlpineda, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Value of Service Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69852 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Rlpineda, Rturner, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Service Systems Engineering Stages Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69929 Contributors: Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Rcloutier, Rlpineda, Rturner, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Enterprise Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69568 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Jmartin,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Enterprise Systems Engineering Background Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70014 Contributors: Afaisandier, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken,
Jmartin, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
The Enterprise as a System Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70231 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Jmartin, Kguillemette, Mhaas,
Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Related Business Activities Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70257 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Jmartin, Kguillemette,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Enterprise Systems Engineering Key Concepts Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70012 Contributors: Afaisandier, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken,
Jmartin, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Enterprise Systems Engineering Process Activities Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69331 Contributors: Afaisandier, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Janthony, Jgercken, Jmartin, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Enterprise Capability Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69383 Contributors: Afaisandier, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Janthony, Jgercken, Jmartin,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Systems of Systems (SoS) Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69902 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cwright, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony, Jdahmann,
Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Architecting Approaches for Systems of Systems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69360 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cwright, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern,
Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Skmackin, Wikiexpert
Socio-Technical Features of Systems of Systems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70282 Contributors: Afaisandier, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cwright, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dnewbern, Janthony, Jdahmann, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Capability Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69421 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cwright, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Janthony, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Skmackin, Wikiexpert
Mission Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69805 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Healthcare Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70129 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, WikiWorks
Overview of the Healthcare Sector Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70267 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, WikiWorks
Systems Engineering in Healthcare Delivery Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69416 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, WikiWorks
Systems Biology Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70200 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, WikiWorks
Lean in Healthcare Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69740 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, WikiWorks
Enabling Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69684 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Janthony, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Radcock, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Enabling Businesses and Enterprises Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70030 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Rbeasley, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Systems Engineering Organizational Strategy Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69961 Contributors: Afaisandier, Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Determining Needed Systems Engineering Capabilities in Businesses and Enterprises Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69359 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase,
Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Groedler, Hsillitto, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Rbeasley, Rmadachy, Rturner, Smenck2, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Organizing Business and Enterprises to Perform Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70255 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman,
Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Rbeasley, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Assessing Systems Engineering Performance of Business and Enterprises Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69422 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman,
Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Rbeasley, Smenck2, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Developing Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69640 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase,
Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Smenck2, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Culture Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69380 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Rbeasley,
Rturner, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Enabling Teams Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69954 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dfairley, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Jgercken, Kguillemette,
Mhaas, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Team Capability Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69908 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dfairley, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Hdavidz, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Team Dynamics Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69923 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dfairley, Dhenry, Dholwell, Janthony, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69389 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas
Technical Leadership in Systems Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69592 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Eleach, Hdavidz, Kguillemette, Mhaas,
Smenck2, WikiWorks
Enabling Individuals Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69711 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Hdavidz, Janthony, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Roles and Competencies Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69917 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Hdavidz,
Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Assessing Individuals Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69347 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Hdavidz, Janthony,
Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Developing Individuals Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69710 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Hdavidz,
Janthony, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Ethical Behavior Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69524 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Hdavidz, Janthony, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Sjackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Related Disciplines Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69875 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Radcock,
SYSIND11, Smenck2, Thilburn, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Systems Engineering and Environmental Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69965 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dnewbern, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Phisterp, Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69904 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Ulenk, WikiWorks
Overview of Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69491 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Ulenk, WikiWorks
Relationship between Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69981 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman,
Mhaas, Ulenk, WikiWorks
Further Insights into Geospatial/Geodetic Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69915 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Ulenk, WikiWorks
Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69621 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Hsillitto,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, SYSIND11, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Engineering and Project Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69587 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
The Nature of Project Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69419 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Kguillemette,
Mhaas, Rturner, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
An Overview of the PMBOK® Guide Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69461 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Kguillemette, Mhaas,
Smenck2, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Relationships between Systems Engineering and Project Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69489 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry,
Dholwell, Dnewbern, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Rturner, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
The Influence of Project Structure and Governance on Systems Engineering and Project Management Relationships Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69886
Contributors: Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Dnewbern, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Procurement and Acquisition Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69496 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Portfolio Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69648 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Systems Engineering and Software Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70211 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Radcock, Skmackin, Thilburn, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Software Engineering in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69550 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock,
Thilburn, WikiWorks
The Nature of Software Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69522 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Mhaas, Thilburn,
WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
An Overview of the SWEBOK Guide Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69769 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dfairley, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Smenck2, Thilburn, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Key Points a Systems Engineer Needs to Know about Software Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69804 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman,
Dfairley, Dhenry, Dholwell, Eleach, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Smenck2, Thilburn, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Software Engineering Features - Models, Methods, Tools, Standards, and Metrics Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70057 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman,
Mhaas, Thilburn, WikiWorks
Systems Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69645 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Systems Engineering and Enterprise IT Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70114 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70188 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Phisterp, Radcock, Rturner, S.Jackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
A Framework for Viewing Quality Attributes from the Lens of Loss Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69630 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Rcloutier
Human Systems Integration Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69625 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Phisterp, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
Manufacturability and Producibility Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69579 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Phisterp, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Adaptability Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69405 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman
System Affordability Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70162 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Phisterp, Radcock,
Rmadachy, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Hardware Assurance Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69702 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, WikiWorks
System Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70130 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Dholwell2, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Phisterp, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
System Resilience Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70124 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Jbrtis, Jgercken, Kguillemette,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Nicole.hutchison, Phisterp, Radcock, Rturner, S.Jackson, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Resistance to Electromagnetic Interference Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69541 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Gparnell, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Nicole.hutchison, Phisterp, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
System Safety Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70185 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Jgercken, Mhaas, Mhenshaw,
Phisterp, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert, Ymordecai
System Security Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69407 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Dhenry, Dholwell, Gparnell, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Phisterp, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Systems Engineering Implementation Examples Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69597 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Matrix of Implementation Examples Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69695 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken,
Kguillemette, Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Implementation Examples Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69952 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, WikiWorks
Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69578 Contributors: Bkcase, Cbaldwin, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, WikiWorks
Virginia Class Submarine Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70186 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Complex Adaptive Taxi Service Scheduler Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69345 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock
Successful Business Transformation within a Russian Information Technology Company Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70102 Contributors: Bkcase, Bwhite,
Cdhoffman, Cnielsen, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, WikiWorks
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Virtual Case File System Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69395 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell,
Hdavidz, Jgercken, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Project Management for a Complex Adaptive Operating System Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69969 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison,
Radcock, WikiWorks
Next Generation Medical Infusion Pump Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69675 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Nicole.hutchison, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Medical Radiation Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70039 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas,
Nicole.hutchison, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Design for Maintainability Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70160 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock
Global Positioning System Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70228 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Bwhite, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Global Positioning System II Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70017 Contributors: Bkcase, Bwhite, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, WikiWorks
Russian Space Agency Project Management Systems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69634 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock,
WikiWorks
How Lack of Information Sharing Jeopardized the NASA/ESA Cassini/Huygens Mission to Saturn Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70041 Contributors: Bkcase, Bwhite,
Cdhoffman, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, WikiWorks
Hubble Space Telescope Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69943 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Bwhite, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Applying a Model-Based Approach to Support Requirements Analysis on the Thirty-Meter Telescope Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69974 Contributors: Bkcase,
Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison
Miniature Seeker Technology Integration Spacecraft Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69790 Contributors: Apyster, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Apollo 1 Disaster Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69729 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas
Denver Airport Baggage Handling System Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69609 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz,
Jgercken, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Skmackin, Smenck2, Wikiexpert
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advanced Automation System (AAS) Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70139 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman,
Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rturner, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Next Generation Air Transportation System Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69677 Contributors: Bkcase, Bwhite, Cdhoffman,
Cnielsen, Kguillemette, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, WikiWorks
Reverse Engineering a UAV Prototype using Agile Practices Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69960 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman
UK West Coast Route Modernisation Project Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69546 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz,
Jgercken, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Standard Korean Light Transit System Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70100 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken,
Mhaas, Mhenshaw, Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, Smenck2, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Northwest Hydro System Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69835 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Nicole.hutchison, WikiWorks
Singapore Water Management Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70164 Contributors: Apyster, Asquires, Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Dhenry, Dholwell, Hdavidz, Jgercken, Mhaas,
Nicole.hutchison, Radcock, Rturner, Skmackin, WikiWorks, Wikiexpert
Emerging Knowledge Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69734 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Ddelaurentis, Hle, Mhaas
Emerging Topics Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69471 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Hle, Mhaas
Introduction to SE Transformation Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69610 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock, WikiWorks
Socio-technical Systems Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70251 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Hle, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Artificial Intelligence Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69511 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas
Verification and Validation of Systems in Which AI is a Key Element Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70263 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Hle, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Transitioning Systems Engineering to a Model-based Discipline Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69425 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Radcock, Rcloutier,
WikiWorks
Model-Based Systems Engineering Adoption Trends 2009-2018 Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69783 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Digital Engineering Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69322 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas
Set-Based Design Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=70199 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, Rcloutier, WikiWorks
System of Systems and Complexity Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69441 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Mhaas, WikiWorks
Emerging Research Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?oldid=69752 Contributors: Bkcase, Cdhoffman, Hle, Mhaas

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

File:Hutchison,Nicole Profile.jpeg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Hutchison,Nicole_Profile.jpeg License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Hutchison_Signature.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Hutchison_Signature.png License: unknown Contributors: -
File:Chris profile picture ESEP.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Chris_profile_picture_ESEP.png License: unknown Contributors: -
File:Eleni Canez.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Eleni_Canez.jpg License: unknown Contributors: -
File:PPI.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PPI.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:PPI_Youtube_Six-Myths-of-Systems-Engineering_final_v2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PPI_Youtube_Six-Myths-of-Systems-Engineering_final_v2.png
License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Caltech_LOGO-Orange_RGB.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Caltech_LOGO-Orange_RGB.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:GMU PLogo RGB.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:GMU_PLogo_RGB.jpg License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:USA Systems Eng Logo.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:USA_Systems_Eng_Logo.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Wsu stacked.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Wsu_stacked.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SEBoK_Context_Diagram_Inner_P1_Ifezue_Obiako.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoK_Context_Diagram_Inner_P1_Ifezue_Obiako.png License:
unknown Contributors: Bkcase
Image:WoYFSO.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:WoYFSO.png License: unknown Contributors: WikiWorks743
File:SE_Key_Concepts.jpeg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SE_Key_Concepts.jpeg License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Scope_BoundariesSE_PM_SM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Scope_BoundariesSE_PM_SM.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw,
Smenck2
File:P1_Scope_and_Con_SE_and_Eng_Sys_Proj_LF_BB.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:P1_Scope_and_Con_SE_and_Eng_Sys_Proj_LF_BB.jpg License:
unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Figure 1. Digital Engineering Systemic Framework (1).jpeg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Figure_1._Digital_Engineering_Systemic_Framework_(1).jpeg License:
File:NASA Image Part 1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:NASA_Image_Part_1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:P1_EconValueSE_RiskBalancedfig2_BB.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:P1_EconValueSE_RiskBalancedfig2_BB.jpg License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SEHistory 50s.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEHistory_50s.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:SEHistory 50s-2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEHistory_50s-2.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:SEHistory 50s-3.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEHistory_50s-3.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:SEHistory 60s&70s.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEHistory_60s&70s.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:SEHistory 60s&70s-2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEHistory_60s&70s-2.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:SEHistory 80s&90s.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEHistory_80s&90s.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:SEHistory 21stCentury.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEHistory_21stCentury.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:IFSR_SPF_August_2013.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:IFSR_SPF_August_2013.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:IFSR_ISA_July_2012_REV.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:IFSR_ISA_July_2012_REV.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Smenck2
File:Fig_1_System_Fundamentals_and_Engineered_Systems_RA.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig_1_System_Fundamentals_and_Engineered_Systems_RA.png
License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw
File:Part2 Environment 201905.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Part2_Environment_201905.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Part2 ModifiedCapabilityEngineering 201905.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Part2_ModifiedCapabilityEngineering_201905.png License: unknown
Contributors: Bkcase
File:Part2 ServiceSystem 201905.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Part2_ServiceSystem_201905.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SE Core Concept Relationships.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SE_Core_Concept_Relationships.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SE Core Concept Relationships Example.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SE_Core_Concept_Relationships_Example.PNG License: unknown Contributors:
Bkcase
File:Core SEBoK Concepts.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Core_SEBoK_Concepts.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Part2 ServiceSystemofInterest 201905.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Part2_ServiceSystemofInterest_201905.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Archetypes of Cycle.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Archetypes_of_Cycle.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:One Spin of the Holon.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:One_Spin_of_the_Holon.jpg License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:The Unbroken Sequence Of Origins.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:The_Unbroken_Sequence_Of_Origins.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:Fig2_Systems_Thinking_and_Systems_Science_RA.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig2_Systems_Thinking_and_Systems_Science_RA.png License: unknown
Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Picture1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Picture1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:060611_SF_System_Conept_Model-Top_Levelnofig10.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:060611_SF_System_Conept_Model-Top_Levelnofig10.png License:
File:Fig_1_Systems_Engineering_and_the_Systems_Approach_RA.png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig_1_Systems_Engineering_and_the_Systems_Approach_RA.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:052311_SJ_System_Coupling_Diagram.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:052311_SJ_System_Coupling_Diagram.png License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Ellipse Graphic J Ring.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Ellipse_Graphic_J_Ring.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Fig_3_Complex_Systems_Engineering_Diagram_Sillitto2010.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig_3_Complex_Systems_Engineering_Diagram_Sillitto2010.png
License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw
File:Fig_1_SA_Activities_Through_Life_RA.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig_1_SA_Activities_Through_Life_RA.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase,
Cnielsen, Mhenshaw
File:15288_Standard_Outline_-_Model.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:15288_Standard_Outline_-_Model.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Model-Based_System_Design_Process_Part3.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Model-Based_System_Design_Process_Part3.png License: unknown
File:The_System_Phenomenon.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:The_System_Phenomenon.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:STEMArticle_DifferentViewsofSE.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:STEMArticle_DifferentViewsofSE.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Schindel_TheSystemPerspective.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Schindel_TheSystemPerspective.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase

File:Screen_Shot_2022-05-20_at_3.42.18_PM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Screen_Shot_2022-05-20_at_3.42.18_PM.png License: unknown Contributors:
Bkcase
File:Chemical_Interactions,_Phenomena,_Principles.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Chemical_Interactions,_Phenomena,_Principles.png License: unknown
File:Ground_and_Marine_Vehicles,_Aircraft,_Regulation_in_Organisms.png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Ground_and_Marine_Vehicles,_Aircraft,_Regulation_in_Organisms.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Summary_View_of_S*Metamodel.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Summary_View_of_S*Metamodel.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:062211_BL_Paradigm.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:062211_BL_Paradigm.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Fig_1_A_generic_life_cycle_KF.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig_1_A_generic_life_cycle_KF.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SE Hump diagram.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SE_Hump_diagram.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Ex_Itera_of_processes_related_to_Sys_Def_AF_052312.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Ex_Itera_of_processes_related_to_Sys_Def_AF_052312.png License:
File:JS_Figure_1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:JS_Figure_1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Hierarchical_decomposition_of_a_system-of-interest_060612.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Hierarchical_decomposition_of_a_system-of-interest_060612.jpg
License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Recursion_of_processes_on_layers_060612.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Recursion_of_processes_on_layers_060612.jpg License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Needs-to-requirements-ryan.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Needs-to-requirements-ryan.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Fig 1 Primary models of incremental and evolutionary development KF.png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig_1_Primary_models_of_incremental_and_evolutionary_development_KF.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:KF_EvolutionaryConcurrentChange.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_EvolutionaryConcurrentChange.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw,
Smenck2
File:KF_VeeModel_Left.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_VeeModel_Left.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Fig_2_Life_Cycle_Stages_Vee_KF.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig_2_Life_Cycle_Stages_Vee_KF.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:KF_GenericStageStructure.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_GenericStageStructure.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Comparisons_of_life_cycle_models.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Comparisons_of_life_cycle_models.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase,
Janthony, Mhenshaw
File:KF_SchedulingDevelopment.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_SchedulingDevelopment.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:KF_ILSSystemLifeCycle.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_ILSSystemLifeCycle.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:KF_VeeModel_Right.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_VeeModel_Right.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Evolutionary_Generic_Model.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Evolutionary_Generic_Model.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Janthony, Mhenshaw
File:KF_IncrementalDevelopment_Multiple.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_IncrementalDevelopment_Multiple.png License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Incremental_Development_with_a_single_delivery.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Incremental_Development_with_a_single_delivery.PNG License: unknown
Contributors: Janthony, Mhenshaw
File:KF_EvolutionComponents_Orbiter.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_EvolutionComponents_Orbiter.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw,
Smenck2
File:KF_IncrementalBuildCycles.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_IncrementalBuildCycles.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:KF_IncrementalCommitmentSpiral.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_IncrementalCommitmentSpiral.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw,
Smenck2
File:KF_Phase_GenericIncremental.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_Phase_GenericIncremental.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:KF_ICSMActivityCategories.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_ICSMActivityCategories.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:KF_FeasibilityEvidenceDescription.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:KF_FeasibilityEvidenceDescription.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw,
Smenck2
File:Tale_of_Two_Implementations_Schwaber.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Tale_of_Two_Implementations_Schwaber.jpg License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Example_of_Architected_Agile_Process_Replacement_070912.png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Example_of_Architected_Agile_Process_Replacement_070912.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Life-Cycle-Model-Purpose AdaptedfromIEEE Dove.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Life-Cycle-Model-Purpose_AdaptedfromIEEE_Dove.png License:
File:ASELCM S-Pattern Class Hierarchy Dove&Schindel 2019.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ASELCM_S-Pattern_Class_Hierarchy_Dove&Schindel_2019.png
License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:ASELCM Reference Boundaries Dove&Schindel 2019.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ASELCM_Reference_Boundaries_Dove&Schindel_2019.png License:
File:AgileSEFramework(Marbach etal).png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:AgileSEFramework(Marbach_etal).png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Generic_(T)_Stage_Structure_of_System_Life_Cycle_Models_(Lawson_2010,_Figure_6-2).png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Generic_(T)_Stage_Structure_of_System_Life_Cycle_Models_(Lawson_2010,_Figure_6-2).png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw,
Smenck2
File:@@BKCASE_Wiki_Section_2.5_Fig_2a_PDF_110820.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:@@BKCASE_Wiki_Section_2.5_Fig_2a_PDF_110820.png License:
File:@@BKCASE_Wiki_Section_2.5_Fig_2b_PDF_110820.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:@@BKCASE_Wiki_Section_2.5_Fig_2b_PDF_110820.png License:
File:Figure_3._Spiral_Model_support_for_Process_Models,_Product_Models....png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Figure_3._Spiral_Model_support_for_Process_Models,_Product_Models....png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:T-Model_for_Software_System_(Lawson_2010,_Figure_6-3).png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:T-Model_for_Software_System_(Lawson_2010,_Figure_6-3).png
File:Iteration_through_Life_Cycle_Stages_(Lawson_2010,_Figure_6-4).png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Iteration_through_Life_Cycle_Stages_(Lawson_2010,_Figure_6-4).png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:@@BKCASE_Sect_2.5_Fig_6A.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:@@BKCASE_Sect_2.5_Fig_6A.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:@@BKCASE_Sect_2.5_Fig_6B.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:@@BKCASE_Sect_2.5_Fig_6B.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:QQBKCASE_Sect_2.5_Fig_6C.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:QQBKCASE_Sect_2.5_Fig_6C.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:semp_and_integrated_plans.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Semp_and_integrated_plans.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Decision_Mgt_Process_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Decision_Mgt_Process_DM.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Fund_Obj_Hierarchy_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fund_Obj_Hierarchy_DM.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Value_Function_Example_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Value_Function_Example_DM.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Swing_Weight_Matrix_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Swing_Weight_Matrix_DM.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2

File:Descript_of_Alt_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Descript_of_Alt_DM.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:ALT_Scores_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ALT_Scores_DM.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Value_Scorecard_w_Heat_Map_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Value_Scorecard_w_Heat_Map_DM.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Eq_1.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Eq_1.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Eq_2.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Eq_2.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Value_Comp_Graph_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Value_Comp_Graph_DM.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Ex_Stakeholder_Value_Scat_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Ex_Stakeholder_Value_Scat_DM.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Uncertainty_on_Perf_Value_from_Monte_DM.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Uncertainty_on_Perf_Value_from_Monte_DM.png License: unknown
Contributors: Smenck2
File:Cm_functions.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Cm_functions.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Cm_change_control_process.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Cm_change_control_process.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:InfoMgtProcess_Fig1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:InfoMgtProcess_Fig1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:ArchitectureDesignConsid_Fig2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ArchitectureDesignConsid_Fig2.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Measurement_Process_Model-Figure_1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Measurement_Process_Model-Figure_1.png License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Composition_of_Leading_Indicator-Figure_2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Composition_of_Leading_Indicator-Figure_2.png License: unknown
Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Technical_Measures_Relationship-Figure_3.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Technical_Measures_Relationship-Figure_3.png License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Enterprise_Strategy_and_Concept_Development.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Enterprise_Strategy_and_Concept_Development.PNG License: unknown
File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystDef_Cycle_of_needs.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystDef_Cycle_of_needs.png License: unknown Contributors:
Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Decomposition_of_Functions_AF_071112(2).png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Decomposition_of_Functions_AF_071112(2).png License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Illustration_of_a_scenario_(eFFBD)_AF_071112.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Illustration_of_a_scenario_(eFFBD)_AF_071112.png License: unknown
File:Illustration_of_a_scenario_Activity_Diagram_AF_071112.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Illustration_of_a_scenario_Activity_Diagram_AF_071112.png
File:SEBoKv075_KA-SystDef_Scenario_of_Operational_Modes.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv075_KA-SystDef_Scenario_of_Operational_Modes.png
File:SEBoKv05 KA-SystDef Temporal and decision hierarchy levels.png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystDef_Temporal_and_decision_hierarchy_levels.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SEBoKv075_KA-SystDef_Limited_nb_in_decomposition.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv075_KA-SystDef_Limited_nb_in_decomposition.png
File:SEBoKv075_KA-SystDef_Encapsulation.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv075_KA-SystDef_Encapsulation.png License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_how_outputs_of_Definition_relate_to_Implementation.png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_how_outputs_of_Definition_relate_to_Implementation.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_Implementation_relationships.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_Implementation_relationships.png
File:Limits_of_integration_activities.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Limits_of_integration_activities.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_Integration_relationships.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_Integration_relationships.png License:
File:Definition_and_usage_of_a_Verification_Action.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Definition_and_usage_of_a_Verification_Action.png License: unknown
File:052611_SJ_notional_reliability_analysis.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:052611_SJ_notional_reliability_analysis.png License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Definition_and_usage_of_a_Validation_Action.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Definition_and_usage_of_a_Validation_Action.png License: unknown
File:Verification_and_Validation_level_per_level.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Verification_and_Validation_level_per_level.png License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_V&V_Actions_upper_levels.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_V&V_Actions_upper_levels.png License:
File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_V&V_Actions_lower_levels.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_V&V_Actions_lower_levels.png License:
File:Affordable_Sys_Ops_Effect_DAU_GB_Roedler.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Affordable_Sys_Ops_Effect_DAU_GB_Roedler.jpg License: unknown
File:Sustainment_Implementation_Illustration_Logistics_Roedler.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Sustainment_Implementation_Illustration_Logistics_Roedler.jpg
File:052411_BSBW_The_Vee_Model.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:052411_BSBW_The_Vee_Model.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Breadth_and_Depth_of_Key_SE_Related_Standards.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Breadth_and_Depth_of_Key_SE_Related_Standards.PNG License:
unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Janthony, Mhenshaw
File:Standards_Alignment_Results_as_of_May_2011.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Standards_Alignment_Results_as_of_May_2011.PNG License: unknown
Contributors: Bkcase, Janthony, Mhenshaw
File:Fig_3_Growing_Industry_Collaboration_GR.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig_3_Growing_Industry_Collaboration_GR.png License: unknown
Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw
File:Standards_Alignment_Results_as_of_May_2011a.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Standards_Alignment_Results_as_of_May_2011a.PNG License: unknown
Contributors: Janthony, Mhenshaw
File:Potential_Standards_Influence_of_Organization_and_Project_Processes.PNG Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Potential_Standards_Influence_of_Organization_and_Project_Processes.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Janthony, Mhenshaw
File:PSE_Intro_Fig1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PSE_Intro_Fig1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2

File:IPDP PSE Background Figure 1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:IPDP_PSE_Background_Figure_1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:PSE_PSEB_Fig2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PSE_PSEB_Fig2.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:PSE_PAAS_Fig1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PSE_PAAS_Fig1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:PSE_PAAS_Fig2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PSE_PAAS_Fig2.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:PSE_PSEKA_Fig1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PSE_PSEKA_Fig1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:PSE_PSESA_Fig1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PSE_PSESA_Fig1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SSE_SSB_Fig1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SSE_SSB_Fig1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SSE_FOS_Fig1_no_white_space.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SSE_FOS_Fig1_no_white_space.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:SSE_FOS_Fig3.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SSE_FOS_Fig3.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SSE_FOS_Fig4.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SSE_FOS_Fig4.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SSE_VoSSE_Fig1v2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SSE_VoSSE_Fig1v2.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:ESE-F01.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ESE-F01.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:ESE-F30_Process_Breakdown.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ESE-F30_Process_Breakdown.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Use Cases ISO 14971 15288.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Use_Cases_ISO_14971_15288.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Organizational_coupling_diagram_v2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Organizational_coupling_diagram_v2.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw,
Smenck2
File:System_enterprises_and_organizations_v2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:System_enterprises_and_organizations_v2.png License: unknown Contributors:
Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Culture_competence_team_performance_and_individual_competence.png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Culture_competence_team_performance_and_individual_competence.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Part_5_(Organization)_Concept_maps_additions_hgs_15_Aug.png Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Part_5_(Organization)_Concept_maps_additions_hgs_15_Aug.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Picture1_HGS.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Picture1_HGS.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:TPM_Chart_from_INCOSE_SELIG.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:TPM_Chart_from_INCOSE_SELIG.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw,
Smenck2
File:Concept_map_for_businesses_and_enterprises_topics.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Concept_map_for_businesses_and_enterprises_topics.png License:
File:Fairley_Fig_1_(2)_Layer_1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fairley_Fig_1_(2)_Layer_1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Fairley_Fig_2_Layer_1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fairley_Fig_2_Layer_1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:DEI_Figure1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:DEI_Figure1.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:DEI_Figure2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:DEI_Figure2.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Inclusive-engineering-framework-new.jpeg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Inclusive-engineering-framework-new.jpeg License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Dimensions_of_Communication_Styles.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Dimensions_of_Communication_Styles.png License: unknown Contributors: Smenck2
File:Layered_and_Multi-dimensional_in_the_Engineering_Layer.PNG Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Layered_and_Multi-dimensional_in_the_Engineering_Layer.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Janthony, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:MITRE_Enterprise_Systems_Engineering_Framework.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:MITRE_Enterprise_Systems_Engineering_Framework.PNG License:
unknown Contributors: Janthony, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Environmental_Engineering_HighRes.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Environmental_Engineering_HighRes.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw,
Smenck2
File:Mapping_of_tech_topics_SEBoK_with_ISO_IEC_15288techPro_060612.jpg Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Mapping_of_tech_topics_SEBoK_with_ISO_IEC_15288techPro_060612.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase, Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:IISE_BoK.jpeg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:IISE_BoK.jpeg License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SE&IE_Venn.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SE&IE_Venn.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SE&IE_lifecycle_view.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SE&IE_lifecycle_view.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:PM-SE1.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PM-SE1.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:PM-SE2.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:PM-SE2.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:P6_Fig1_The_Organizational_Continuum_KN.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:P6_Fig1_The_Organizational_Continuum_KN.jpg License: unknown
File:ACQProcessModel_NoWhiteS.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ACQProcessModel_NoWhiteS.png License: unknown Contributors: Dhenry, Mhenshaw,

Smenck2
File:RelatingACQtoRFP_NoWhiteS.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:RelatingACQtoRFP_NoWhiteS.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SE_PM_PfM_DEVopsEnviornment_20201020.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SE_PM_PfM_DEVopsEnviornment_20201020.jpg License: unknown
File:Aligned-Process-Models.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Aligned-Process-Models.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Fig._1_Integration_Process_for_Specialty_Engineering.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fig._1_Integration_Process_for_Specialty_Engineering.png License:
File:LDSE Figure 20200702.gif Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:LDSE_Figure_20200702.gif License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SysAdaptability Figure3 SEBoK Original.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SysAdaptability_Figure3_SEBoK_Original.png License: unknown Contributors:
Bkcase
Bkcase
Bkcase
Bkcase
File:Component_Lifecycle_(rev_a)_-_MJB_ver2.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Component_Lifecycle_(rev_a)_-_MJB_ver2.jpg License: unknown Contributors:
Bkcase
File:Fault_tree.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Fault_tree.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Simple_RBD.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Simple_RBD.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Time-Wise_Values_of_Notional_Resilience_Scenarios_Parameters.PNG Source:
https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Time-Wise_Values_of_Notional_Resilience_Scenarios_Parameters.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SystemResilience_Figure_2_Brtis_AffordableResilience.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SystemResilience_Figure_2_Brtis_AffordableResilience.png License:
File:Figure 1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Figure_1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Figure 2.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Figure_2.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:SystemSecurityandPerformance.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SystemSecurityandPerformance.png License: unknown Contributors: -
File:HierarchyofUnacceptableConditions.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:HierarchyofUnacceptableConditions.png License: unknown Contributors: -
File:Casestudies-2x2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Casestudies-2x2.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:AN BSY-1 Submarine Combat System.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:AN_BSY-1_Submarine_Combat_System.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:VA combat system architecture.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:VA_combat_system_architecture.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Adaptive-scheduling-taxi.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Adaptive-scheduling-taxi.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:MissionAndCapabilities.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:MissionAndCapabilities.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:V Model Process of Transformation.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:V_Model_Process_of_Transformation.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Results of Tranformation.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Results_of_Tranformation.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Enterprise-ontology.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Enterprise-ontology.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:Resources-allocation.PNG Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Resources-allocation.PNG License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:ThirtyMeterTelescope_Figure1_TelescopeImage.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ThirtyMeterTelescope_Figure1_TelescopeImage.png License: unknown
Contributors: Nicole.hutchison
File:ThirtyMeterTelescope_Figure2_EarlyLightLocations.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ThirtyMeterTelescope_Figure2_EarlyLightLocations.png License:
unknown Contributors: Nicole.hutchison
File:ThirtyMeterTelescope_Figure3.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ThirtyMeterTelescope_Figure3.png License: unknown Contributors: Nicole.hutchison
File:ThirtyMeterTelescope Figure6.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ThirtyMeterTelescope_Figure6.png License: unknown Contributors: Nicole.hutchison
File:ChoeKimFigure1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ChoeKimFigure1.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:ChoeKimFigure2.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:ChoeKimFigure2.png License: unknown Contributors: Mhenshaw, Smenck2
File:Figure1 systemsubsystem.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Figure1_systemsubsystem.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:Figure2 MLprocess.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:Figure2_MLprocess.png License: unknown Contributors: User:Bkcase
File:MBSE Trends Figure 1.png Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:MBSE_Trends_Figure_1.png License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SEBok SBD Figure1.gif Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBok_SBD_Figure1.gif License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase
File:SEBoK_SBD_Figure5.jpg Source: https://sebokwiki.org/d/index.php?title=File:SEBoK_SBD_Figure5.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Bkcase

Guide To The Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge v2.9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide To The Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge v2.9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Released 20 November 2023

Released 20 November 2023

Part 1: SEBoK Introduction 20

Introduction to the SEBoK 22

Introduction to Systems Engineering 30

SEBoK Users and Uses 60

Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering 85

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering Fundamentals 92

Knowledge Area: The Nature of Systems 118

Knowledge Area: Systems Science 134

Knowledge Area: Systems Thinking 158

Knowledge Area: Representing Systems with Models 185

Knowledge Area: Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems 214

Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management 255

Knowledge Area: Systems Lifecycle Approaches 279

Knowledge Area: System Lifecycle Models 295

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering Management 358

Knowledge Area: Business and Mission Analysis 419

Knowledge Area: System Architecture Definition 446

Knowledge Area: Service Life Management 531

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering Standards 556

Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering 572

Knowledge Area: Product Systems Engineering 575

Knowledge Area: Service Systems Engineering 624

Knowledge Area: Enterprise Systems Engineering 664

Knowledge Area: Systems of Systems (SoS) 717

Knowledge Area: Healthcare Systems Engineering 739

Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering 765

Knowledge Area: Enabling Businesses and Enterprises 768

Knowledge Area: Enabling Teams 815

Knowledge Area: Enabling Individuals 848

Part 6: Related Disciplines 874

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Environmental Engineering 877

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Geospatial/Geodetic

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering 903

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Project Management 911

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Software Engineering 936

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Mechanical Engineering 960

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Enterprise IT 965

Knowledge Area: Systems Engineering and Quality Attributes 978

Part 7: SE Implementation Examples 1059

Defense System Examples 1068

Information System Examples 1079

Management System Examples 1096

Medical System Examples 1101

Space System Examples 1112

Transportation System Examples 1151

Utilities Examples 1169

Part 8: Emerging Knowledge 1177

Emerging Topics 1180

Emerging Research 1225

Governance and Editorial Boards

SEBoK Editor in Chief

SEBoK Managing Editor

SEBoK Part 1: SEBoK Introduction

Lead Editor: Nicole Hutchison

SEBoK Part 2: Foundations of Systems Engineering

Lead Editor: Gary Smith (UK)

Assistant Editor: Dov Dori Assistant Editor: Duane Hybertson

Assistant Editor: Peter Tuddenham Assistant Editor: Cihan Dagli

SEBoK Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management

Lead Editor: Jeffrey Carter